With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by which the court conducts its review; its purpose is to require a zoning board of adjustment to forward to the court the record of the zoning decision being challenged, and has nothing to do with the court’s jurisdiction. Id. The granting of the writ itself is discretionary, because Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code Ann § 211.011 (c) (Vernon 1988), provides that upon application, the district court “may” issue the writ. However, section 211.011(e) provides that evidence may also be submitted at a hearing on the appeal. Should the district court not issue the writ, then the appellants would have the burden of providing a sufficient record at the hearing to determine the illegality of the Board’s decision. Cf. Barry Nussbaum v. City of Dallas, 948 S.W.2d 305, 307 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1996, no writ) (<HOLDING>). It does not appear to' be an abuse of

A: holding that under the similar tex log govt code ann  2140012a where appellant failed to request writ of certiorari and no evidence existed in record presumption was that sufficient evidence existed to uphold boards decision
B: holding that standing existed
C: holding no liability existed under the circumstances
D: holding no defamation existed
A.