With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the court held that to prohibit the gathering of signatures on initiative petitions in the common areas of large shopping centers such as the Lloyd Center violated Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. Thus, plaintiff asks us to hold that the right to seek signatures for initiative petitions is not implicated at any of its Oregon stores because the stores are not large shopping centers like the Lloyd Center. Assuming without deciding that we are presented with a justiciable controversy with regard to all of plaintiffs Oregon stores, we decline to adjudicate the question presented for another reason. In this case, the factual information necessary for the resolution of the issue is insufficient. See Oregon Medical Assn. v. Rawls, 276 Or 1101, 1106, 557 P2d 664 (1976) (<HOLDING>). The only evidence we have regarding most of

A: holding that the insufficiency of factual data necessary for the resolution of a question presented is a reason for declining to grant declaratory relief
B: holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment
C: holding double jeopardy does not bar second trial after granting of new trial for reason other than insufficiency of evidence
D: holding that insufficiency of indictment is not a basis for habeas relief
A.