There was the case of divorce proceedings of two childhood sweethearts...

After long and disjointed pre-trial arbitration, the Advocate stood
and gave a single speech laden with esoterica and nuanced philosophic
gestalts. While the nature of his contentions is debated by legal
scholars to this day, backed with locked vaults of private
communications secretly hoarded, the majorant opinion states
(with some variation) that the pretense of monogamy[*] rests upon the
instinct of procreation which cannot within a causal framework shown
to have a positive or negative impact, nor even, in fact, that any
meaning save the individual subjective can be interpreted from,
herein, the ideas of "positive" or "negative".  That any true devotion
may be maintained between two individuals must be, in effect,
exclusionary of loyalty to any other recipient and that, while
possible, such a state is indicated generally[**] not to exist, and the
profession and tolerence of the defendent of such generous offers even
if at no direct cost undermined the literal as well as effectual
tenents of the social contract with which they are claimed to have bound
themselves. It was thereby concluded[***] that what the parties had
contended to enter contractually as a legal betrothal had never
held any sort of exhibited binding and was thereby untenable
as a legal mechanism; and further, were the converse to be found
valid, by violation of such an arrangement the once-happy "bride"
would be the subject of reperations for the slight breech of
acceptance of help in a karmically[****] binding situation, even if
she herself was ignorant of the nature of the laws of communication,
information association, and abject conciousness (in other words, the
i.e. physical laws describing low-level information science, which
remained legally undefined). 

Though the mediation was set for deliberation by jury, the judge, citing arcane
laws and rites long forgotten but meticulously recorded in the canon,
ruled that the case was outside of the rule of law and cast it out of
court, the parties to find whatever finality they themselves would create.

While few cases have been so closely studied, neither the judge's
ruling nor the Advocate's contentions have ever been cited for precedent.

----

[*] some scholars extend this to love itself

[**] statistically, although a rigorous proof is (believed to be) impossible 

[***] interpretation

[****] the Advocate did not use the term "karma", but it is used here
as a shorthand for what can only be described as an intimate
description of the process of association as manifested by neural
networks in biological beings but with implications extending further
into the philosophic plane. No suggestion of mysticism is indicated
here, nor (some would contend) by the Advocate.