With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". authorization of an emergency procurement ... and ... this [was] a matter of public importance which could occur at any time....” Id. at 169, 666 S.E.2d at 240. However, in the present case, SCDOT has determined the inspection of private bridges is against its own policy. Thus, we find the matter will neither “affect future events [n]or have collateral consequences.” IV. Remaining Issues Finally, Appellants argue the circuit court erred in finding SCDOT was legitimately assisting a municipality and in failing to find SCDOT violated Article X, sections 5 and 11 of the South Carolina Constitution. Based on our resolution of the issues of standing and mootness, we need not reach this issue. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598, 613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the

A: holding appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when decision on prior issue disposes of appeal
B: holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues on appeal when its determination of a prior issue is dispositive
C: holding an appellate court need not address remaining issues when resolution of another issue disposes of the appeal
D: holding that appellate courts need not address remaining issues when the resolution of a prior issue is dispositive
C.