With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with the department. Section 84-917 provides that one “aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case” before an administrative agency “shall be entitled to judicial review ... .” Assuming, but not deciding, that the department has jurisdiction to pass upon the rights, if any, which Inner Harbour may have against the department under the latter’s agreement with the adoptive parents, the fact is that the matter was not before the department, and it therefore made no decision, final or otherwise, with respect thereto. That being so, there was no decision for the district court to review in that regard; it was therefore without jurisdiction to issue any orders with respect to the adoption agreement. See Bohling v. State Bd. of Pub. Accountancy, 243 Neb. 666, 501 N.W.2d 714 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the portion of the district

A: holding that district court lacked power to decide personal jurisdiction issue already decided by district of columbia superior court
B: holding that in absence of valid final order district court lacked power to review boards action
C: holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to review state disciplinary proceedings against attorney
D: holding that this court lacked jurisdiction under  46110 for lack of finality and that the district court also lacked jurisdiction because the orders were not final and thus not ripe for review
B.