With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Tae Woong Venture, Inc. v. Westward Seafoods, Inc., 963 P.2d 1055, 1065 n. 4 (Alaska 1998). 5 . Neal & Co., Inc. v. Association of Village Council Presidents Reg. Hous. Auth., 895 P.2d 497, 502 (Alaska 1995). 6 . Alaska Diversified Contractors, Inc. v. Lower Kuskokwim Sch. Dist., 778 P.2d 581, 584 (Alaska 1989). 7 . Hayes v. Charney, 693 P.2d 831, 834 (Alaska 1985) (quoting Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 53 (Alaska 1971)). 8 . Maynard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 902 P.2d 1328, 1329 n. 2 (Alaska 1995). 9 . Ostrow v. Higgins, 722 P.2d 936, 939 (Alaska 1986). 10 . - Municipality of Anchorage v. Anchorage Daily News, 794 P.2d 584, 588 (Alaska 1990). 11 . See Honig v. Students of the California Sch. for the Blind, 471 U.S. 148, 149, 105 S.Ct. 1820, 85 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S.

A: holding that where a district courts preliminary injunction preventing the appellant from terminating its agreement with the defendant had expired the appellants appeal of the district courts decision to grant that injunction was moot
B: holding appeal moot where tests that had been ordered under the preliminary injunction had already been car ried out
C: recognizing the inappropriateness of a preliminary injunction where credibility determinations must be made but granting a preliminary injunction because the legal and factual issues have been sufficiently illuminated
D: holding that it was not fatal when the notice of appeal did not state that the transcript had been ordered when in actuality it had been ordered
B.