With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Doe to accurately reflect its intent. Thus, to overturn these cases, the Court would have to oppose not only deeply-rooted decisions of the Fourth Circuit, but also the will of the North Carolina Legislature. Furthermore, it is difficult to imagine that the legislature intended its amendment to § 1-52(16) to reverse over 30 years of North Carolina precedent recognizing latent disease exceptions to time sensitive statutes. Such a dramatic departure would certainly warrant some comment in the legislative history. However, no such comment exists. See Wilder, 314 N.C. at 561, 336 S.E.2d 66 (placing importance on the “deliberate omission of reference to disease as this statute made its way through the legislative process.”) Finally, the Court cannot fathom a law that would requ la. 1981) (<HOLDING>); Battilla v. Allis Chalmers Mfg. Co., 392

A: holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case
B: holding 12year statute of limitations violated state guarantee of open courts when it would have barred right of actions against manufacturer of drug before they ever existed as it was not discovered until 20 years after drug was administered that the drug caused cancer
C: holding that the drug tax violated the privilege against selfincrimination
D: holding joinder of a hospital medical malpractice claim and a drug manufacturer products liability theory was proper in claim alleging injury from administering a drug
B.