Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): a nuisance per se, but [] it may become a nuisance because of its location or manner in which it is operated.”). 62 . Adams v. NVR Homes, Inc., 135 F.Supp.2d 675, 689 (D.Md.2001) (citing Burley v. City of Annapolis, 182 Md. 307, 34 A.2d 603 (1946) and Tadjer, 479 A.2d at 1321). 63 . Though Exxon cites two cases which state that a "public nuisance is a criminal offense” neither case holds that a statute criminalizing the activity is a prerequisite to public nuisance. See Exxon Mem. at 4 (citing Hoffman v. United Iron & Metal Co., 108 Md.App. 117, 671 A.2d 55, 64 (1996) (declining to decide whether a scrap metal yard and automobile shredding facility was a public nuisance because the issue was not raised below) and Rosenblatt v. Exxon Co., U.S.A., 335 Md. 58, 642 A.2d 180, 190 (1994) (<HOLDING>)). Instead, as noted, Maryland relies on the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the fact that an exempt owner who acquired legal title after date when liability for current taxes had accrued was the equitable owner did not make the exemption applicable (B) recognizing a cause of action by the owner of contaminated property against a previous owner who allegedly caused the contamination (C) holding stock dividend payable to actual owner not owner of record (D) holding that because the property owner argued only a theory of taking that was no longer a valid theory property owner did not demonstrate his entitlement to relief (E) holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner
Output (English): recognizing a cause of action by the owner of contaminated property against a previous owner who allegedly caused the contamination