With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 149 F.3d 1191 (10th Cir.1998) (unpublished table decision); Ottema v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker’s Comp. Div., 968 P.2d 41, 45-46 (Wyo.1998). In the present case, there is no evidence of the gamesmanship that the doctrine of judicial estoppel was intended to prevent. Longaberger’s arguments, though facially inconsistent, were not an attempt to abuse the judicial process through cynical gamesmanship. Rather, Longaberger altered its theory of recovery in response to the change in the law brought by Sereboff. In light of this change in law, Longaberger’s motives are not suspicious because, for the reasons stated above, Longaberger could not have argued its prior position without running afoul of controlling Supreme Court case law. Cf. New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 755, 121 S.Ct. 1808 (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). We therefore adopt the

A: holding that public policy must be evidenced by constitutional or statutory provisions
B: recognizing that judicial estoppel might not be applicable if inconsistent positions result from change in public policy statutory provisions or facts
C: holding that public policy may be found in letter or purpose of constitutional statutory or regulatory provisions in judicial decisions of state and in certain instances in professional codes of ethics
D: holding that the courts may not declare public policy without a basis in either the constitution or statutory provisions
B.