With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the City lacked the necessary jurisdiction to undertake the annexation, it was null and void. ¶ 11 In an analogous United States Supreme Court case, land owners contested the attempted annexation of noncontiguous lands by a town. Ocean Beach Heights, 302 U.S. at 614, 58 S.Ct. 385. The Court held that the controlling statute did not permit the annexation of noncontiguous lands. Id. at 617, 58 S.Ct. 385. Having failed to comply with the statute, the Court found that the town lacked both de jure and de facto authority to tax lands within the purportedly annexed area. Id. at 617-19, 58 S.Ct. 385. Accordingly, the Court held that the town could not “restrain the petitioners from defending against levy and collection of the taxes de, 213 Ariz. 1, 7-8, ¶ 31, 137 P.3d 309, 315-16 (App.2006) (<HOLDING>); Peterson, 477 P.2d at 155 (holding that the

A: holding that plaintiffs negligence defective manufacturing defective design breach of warranty and failure to warn claims were preempted by the mda and fdca defined below
B: holding that petitions failure to avow the absence of a prior competing petition as required by ars  9471a6 rendered it defective
C: holding that notice of removal was defective on its face because it failed to contain a copy of the process as required by the removal statute
D: holding the mda did not preempt plaintiffs state common law claims for defective design defective manufacture and failure to warn
B.