The Sunnyside was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1875. The case involved a dispute between the owners of the Sunnyside, a steamboat, and the owners of the steamer, the John B. Cowan. The owners of the Sunnyside had filed a libel suit against the owners of the John B. Cowan, claiming that the John B. Cowan had negligently caused the Sunnyside to be damaged. The owners of the John B. Cowan argued that the Sunnyside had been damaged due to the negligence of the Sunnyside's own crew. The Supreme Court held that the owners of the John B. Cowan were liable for the damages caused to the Sunnyside. The Court reasoned that the John B. Cowan had a duty to exercise reasonable care in navigating the waters, and that the negligence of the John B. Cowan's crew had caused the Sunnyside to be damaged. The Court also held that the owners of the John B. Cowan were liable for the damages caused to the Sunnyside, even though the Sunnyside's crew had been negligent. The Sunnyside case established the principle that a vessel's owners are liable for damages caused by the negligence of their crew, even if the negligence of the vessel's own crew contributed to the damages. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since the Sunnyside decision, and is still an important part of maritime law today.

The Sunnyside case was a dispute between two parties over the ownership of land in Oregon. The Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides and ultimately ruled against the defendant, who argued that they had acquired title to the property through adverse possession. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that although there were some discrepancies in how long each party had been occupying the land, it was clear that neither side could prove exclusive occupancy for more than ten years—the amount of time necessary to establish title by adverse possession under Oregon law. He further noted that even if one party did have exclusive occupancy for longer than ten years, their claim would still be invalid because they failed to meet other requirements such as paying taxes on the property or making improvements on it. Ultimately he concluded that since neither party could prove exclusive occupation for more than ten years nor fulfill all other requirements needed to acquire title by adverse possession, no one should be granted legal ownership of this particular piece of real estate.