Brief the following (fictional) case Mo v. Tta 123 N.E. 4d 567 (2022) Highest an

Brief the following (fictional) case
Mo v. Tta
123 N.E. 4d 567 (2022)
Highest and Most Supreme Court of Centerstate
Majority Opinion
This case revolves around two bickering adjacent neighbors. This court, and this justice, wishes they would settle this amicably out-of-court but it appears that is not possible. Now here I am questioning my life’s decisions and career path. I thought I would be saving the world using my gavel, notions of justice, and faith in our blessed Constitution of the United States, but instead I am serving as a judge on a court that has to decide cases about freaking flowers falling on a neighbor’s lawn.
Seven years ago, Mo planted hop rhizomes on his property in order to add piney and bitter notes to his (quite good) home-brewed beer. Three years later, the hop vines were massive—MASSIVE! Held on trellises, these bad boys reached fifteen feet. Each spring and summer, the vines produced hop flowers. Some of these would inevitably fall onto Tta’s property. When this happened, Mo would go onto his neighbor’s property and grab the hop flowers. He did not ask for permission. This angered Tta who told Mo to never come onto his property again. Mo claimed that the flowers belonged to him and, because they were his property, he could access Tta’s property to retrieve them. And so the dispute was born and my life ruined. Whenever Mo saw a flower on Tta’s land, he would race onto the property to retrieve it. And whenever Tta saw flowers on his land, he would run out and crush the flower with the heel of his steel-toed boot.
Mo sued Tta for conversion of property. Tta counterclaimed for trespassing. This is where things get interesting. According to Morrison v. Jae, the owner of an apple tree may enter their neighbor’s property to retrieve apples that fall onto it. However, according to Brooks v. Finley, the owner of a tomato vine loses all rights to tomatoes that fall off of their tomato plants onto their neighbor’s property. Basically, these cases all come down to the differences between trees and vines and the differences between apples and tomatoes. So, here we are, trying to figure out whether hop plants are more like apple trees or tomato vines, and whether a hop flower is more like an apple or a tomato. In one sense, hop plants are more akin to tomato plants since they both grow on vines. According to the court in Brooks, this is significant because vines are naturally unruly and must be maintained and pruned; trees are more set in their ways. In another sense, however, hops are more like apples because, when they fall, not much happens—they remain whole. Tomatoes, on the other hand, when they fall, often squish on the ground. The court in Brooks details how a squished tomato would be difficult to retrieve without ruining the neighbor’s property. They also note that a squished tomato is essentially worthless anyhow.
The trial court found for Mo, arguing that hop flowers were more akin to apples than tomatoes, despite being on a vine. They dismissed Tta’s claim of trespassing. The appellate court affirmed. We agree with them for the reasons listed above.