Maryland Judge agrees no evidence that smoke a nuisance, but with caveat

The story is here, previously reported on this blog here. Anti-smoking campaigner James Repace represented the claimant in a case that aimed to show that secondary smoke provided a significant nuisance to his client, and that the housing provider failed to deal adequately with the problem.

Northrop said that the level of secondhand smoke entering David Schuman’s townhouse was not an actionable nuisance. Nor did he see bad faith in GHI's handling of Schuman’s complaints.

What I don't understand is this, near the foot of the article:

Northrop found in favor of the defendant on eight of the nine counts, but he granted a permanent injunction against inside smoking by Mr. and Mrs. Popovic.

Mr Popovich was reported to have ceased smoking in his home from consideration of his wife's illness. Why apply an injunction if the smoke wasn't actionable ... and if the information was available that Mr and Mrs Popovich were no longer smoking at home, surely the injunction was superfluous anyway.