With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in Carey were thus not parties to Ralph I. This procedural variation does not affect the issues now presented. 4 The petitioners assert that “transfer of these cases to Lewis County was a viable alternative’’ even before Ralph I. MDR at 10 n.31. That is incorrect. Prior cases held that actions initially brought in the proper county pursuant to RCW 4.12.010 could later be transferred to another county, but not the other way around. Ralph I, 182 Wn.2d at 245, 255 (citing Snyder, 48 Wn.2d at 639; Cugini, 24 Wn.2d at 409; N. Bend Lumber Co. v. City of Seattle, 147 Wash. 330, 336, 266 P. 156 (1928)). 5 We note that such language would be possible if that were the legislature’s intent. See ZDI Gaming, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling Comm’n, 173 Wn.2d 608, 619, 618, 268 P.3d 929 (2012) (<HOLDING>). 6 At oral argument, counsel for the

A: holding that the legislature wanted to have cases involving the gambling commission heard in thurston county pursuant to a statutory provision that  no court of the state of washington other than the superior court of thurston county shall have jurisdiction over any action or proceeding against the commission  quoting rcw 946095
B: holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county
C: holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county
D: recognizing the transfer of jurisdiction to the commonwealth court of those classes of cases previously heard by the court of common pleas of dauphin county as the court wherein the seat of state government is located
A.