With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 66, 71 (2nd Cir.1976), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 974, 96 S.Ct. 2173, 48 L.Ed.2d 798 (1976). See also Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d 1240, 1251-52 (4th Cir.1985) (applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to a § 1985 conspiracy alleging violation of plaintiffs’ First Amendment and due process rights). See also Doherty, 728 F.2d at 339-40 (applying the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to a § 1985(2) case alleging a corporate conspiracy to coerce plaintiff-employee to enter nolo contendere plea to federal bribery charges). For public policy reasons, however, the First and Third Circuits have refused to apply the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine to § 1985 cases alleging conspiracies to discriminate on the basis of race or sex. See Stathos v. Bowden, 728 F.2d 15, 20-21 (1st Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the Third Circuit rejected the

A: holding that the 1992 amendment to article 5 of the maryland declaration of rights permits a six person jury in all cases except criminal cases
B: holding that 60day time limit for notice of appeal in civil cases not 10day limit in criminal cases applies to  2255 proceedings
C: recognizing that the preponderance of the evidence is the quantum of proof in civil cases
D: holding the logic of the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine in antitrust cases does not warrant its extension to civil rights cases
D.