With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". determination in regard to business activity conducted wholly in Florida. We need not address whether this kind of partial application of collateral estoppel to a sub-issue is correct since we have noted that the issues differ in other significant respects and the factual issues underlying both analyses are different. 5 . For that reason, we do not regard the Florida court’s unexplained use of the term "base of operations” on page two of its order as a factual determination of that issue under Rhoditis. The use of that phrase does not suggest that the Florida court made any determination of YII’s base of operations as that term is used in Rhoditis given the Florida court’s explicit ruling that it would not analyze Vasquez’s case under Rhoditis. 6 . See also Hicks, 953 So.2d at 698 (<HOLDING>); Prestige Rent-A-Car v. Advantage Car Rental &

A: holding that summary judgment was improper where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether prison officials prevented inmate from filing grievances
B: holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff who was approaching a car to enter it as a passenger was occupying a motor vehicle
C: holding that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the contractor where genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a duty to an injured construction worker
D: holding genuine issue of fact existed as to whether previous judgment had a preclusive effect where relevant claims may have been dismissed before trial
D.