With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a basis for a motion in limine that would prohibit any mention of the hospitalization during the course of another proceeding."); In re Hatley, 291 N.C. 693, 231 S.E.2d 633, 634-35 (1977) (stating evidence of prior commitment order could be used to attack capacity of witness, to impeach witness, to attack character of defendant, and in subsequent commitment proceedings). 16 . In re Walter R., 850 A.2d 346, 349 (Me.2004) (citing 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (2000)). 17 . Peter A. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 146 P.3d 991, 994-95 (Alaska 2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted). See also id. (discussing other cases where court held issue was not moot based on potential collateral consequences); Martin v. Dieringer, 108 P.3d 234, 236 (Alaska 2005) (<HOLDING>); Graham v. State, 633 P.2d 211, 213 (Alaska

A: holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims
B: holding collateral estoppel elements met considering changed circumstances in the context of an exception to the general rule of collateral estoppel
C: holding petition to remove personal representative of estate was not moot because findings were used to dismiss related civil suit based on collateral estoppel
D: holding that because proceeds of a letter of credit were not secured by estate collateral the proceeds were not property of the estate
C.