With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2 Widener L. Symp. J. 299, 311 (1997). The polestar must always be scientific or other validity and the evidentiary relevance and reliability of the principles that underlie a proposed submission. Kinnaman v. Ford Motor Co., D. Mo., No. 4:98CV269-SNL, Limbaugh, J. (Jan. 10, 2000) (quoting Jaurequi v. Carter Mfg. Co. Inc., 8th Cir., 173 F.3d 1076, 1081 (1999)). As one would suspect, the proponent of the proffered expert ppears to have been the minority view. Kirstein v. Parks Corp., 7th Cir., 159 F.3d 1065, 1067 (1998) (“We have not required that the Daubert inquiry take any specific form and have, in fact, upheld a judge’s sua sponte consideration of the admissibility of expert testimony”); Target Market Publishing, Inc. v. ADVO, Inc., 7th Cir., 136 F.3d 1139, 1142 n. 9 (1998) (<HOLDING>); City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals Inc.,

A: holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute
B: holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case
C: holding that such statements were not even enough for an evidentiary hearing
D: holding an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of equitable estoppel
B.