With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". status as a charter county meant Section 260.247 did not apply to the County, and 2) failure to join indispensable parties. Both parties filed memoranda of law, and the trial court entered a judgment granting the County’s motion to dismiss on 25 June 2008. In that judgment, the court analyzed whether Section 260.247 applied to the County’s actions, determined it did not, and held that Haulers had failed to state a claim. Haulers appeal. Jurisdiction Writ of Mandamus The parties dispute the threshold question of whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the denial of Haulers’ petition for a writ of mandamus. The general rule is that no appeal lies from the dismissal or the denial of a petition for writ of mandamus. See Harkins v. Mitchell, 911 S.W.2d 689, 690 (Mo.App. E.D.1995) (<HOLDING>); State ex rel. Ashby Road Partners, LLC v.

A: recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review
B: holding that a trial judges denial of a recusal motion can be challenged on appeal or in a petition for a writ of mandamus
C: holding it is settled that the supreme court may consider questions raised on the first appeal after which the court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari as well as those that were before the court of appeals upon the second appeal after which the court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding no appeal permitted from dismissal of writ petition
D.