In Martin v. Howard County, 349 Md. 469, 709 A.2d 125 (1998), Howard County filed an action to "abate" a nuisance pursuant to R.P. 14-120, which, at the time, created a cause of action to "abate" a nuisance when one's use of real property involved controlled dangerous substances or paraphernalia. Id. at 471-72. The tenant requested a jury trial, and the case was transferred to the circuit court. Id. at 475-76. The circuit court struck an earlier order allowing a jury trial and remanded to the District Court because the court agreed with the county that the action sounded in equity as the county sought only injunctive relief. Id. at 476. The Court of Appeals disagreed that the county's possession action was solely equitable in nature, and instead concluded that "an action by or on behalf of a landlord to evict a tenant, on the ground that the tenant no longer is entitled to possession, and to restore possession to the landlord, "is historically an action at law to which the right to a jury trial has always attached in this State." . . . It is a form of the traditional legal action of ejectment. . . . Since ejectment, as well as trespass out of which the action of ejectment grew, are actions at law, the constitutional right to a jury trial attaches." Id. at 481-83. Although the trial court action had been styled a "Complaint for Injunctive Relief," the actual relief sought by the county was, in fact, legal in nature. Id. at 476. The Court of Appeals distinguished actions seeking to halt certain activities on the property, instead pointing out that the nature of the remedy dictates whether the action is one at law or in equity: With respect to actions against defendants who are allegedly engaging in activity "constituting a nuisance, the relief sought will determine the nature of the action. If the relief requested is an order requiring the defendant to stop engaging in the activity, the action is equitable. If the plaintiff requests money damages, or if a plaintiff not in possession requests an order ousting a tenant from possession of the property, the actions are legal, and there is a constitutional right to a jury trial." Id. at 489.