With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.S. Co., 89 Mich.App. 656, 280 N.W.2d 852, 860 (1979). Consistent with both the Florida and Federal rules, it is not enough that an opposing party “merely repeats” the underlying hearsay; indeed, the party must make use of the hearsay in a manner that “manifesto a belief in [its] trustworthiness,” or otherwise reflects the party’s incorporation of the substance of the hearsay into a statement that the party itself either made or authorized. See Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Lozen Int’l, LLC, 285 F.3d 808, 821 (9th Cir. 2002) (determining that an employee’s forwarded e-mail originating from a third party was admissible since it was prefaced with language manifesting a belief in the veracity of the original email’s content); Schering Corp. v. Pfizer Inc., 189 F.3d 218, 238-39 (2d Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>); Wagstaff v. Protective Apparel Corp., 760

A: holding that a plaintiff need only show that the results of a polygraph examination were a factor in the termination of employment and rejecting requirement that results be the sole factor for employees discharge
B: recognizing that blm discussed the modeling results and explained the basis for its decision to discount those results
C: holding that copies of responses to a governmentsponsored prevailing wage survey were not public records under the act
D: holding that survey results were adoptive admissions where an employee of defendant wrote a report summarizing the results of a survey of physicians and drawing conclusions about the types of messages being communicated to physicians by company representatives
D.