With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the question because the party with standing to do so failed to file a notice of cross-appeal. Young v. Sabbatine, No. 99-6336, 2000 WL 1888672, at *2 n. 2 (6th Cir. Dec.19, 2000). The Tenth Circuit, interestingly, has applied the state’s personal injury statute of limitations to § 1981 claims without so much as discussing the possibility that § 1658 might come into play, see Reynolds v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 69 F.3d 1523 (10th Cir.1995); Roberts v. Roadway Express, Inc., 149 F.3d 1098 (10th Cir.1998), which seems odd given that a number of district courts in that circuit have considered and resolved the issue — to conflicting ends. Compare Alexander v. Precision Machining, Inc., 990 F.Supp. 1304 (D.Kan.1997) (<HOLDING>), with Mason v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp., No.

A: holding that the damages and jury trial provisions of the 1991 act apply to conduct occurring prior to the date of enactment
B: holding a limitation on damages arising out of bodily injury to one person involved in an accident applies to all claims arising from the death of that person
C: holding that the thirtyday deadline applies to a claim that arose prior to the 1991 act
D: holding that  1658 applies to claims arising out of the 1991 act
D.