With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Aran Wricnt, Artuur R. Mircer & Epwarp H. Coorer, Practice anp Procepure § 4403 (2d ed. 2002) (discussing res judicata as a judicial creation). Specifically, res judicata encompasses the doctrine of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. See Mack, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29, 221 P.3d 194. " '[Cllaim preclusion corresponds to causes of action;] issue preclusion corresponds to the facts and issues underlying causes of action.'" Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 2008 UT 70, ¶ 31, 194 P.3d 956). 7 . Mack, 2009 UT 47, ¶ 29, 221 P.3d 194 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 . See id. 9 . Id. (quoting Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 2003 UT 13, ¶ 34, 73 P.3d 325); see also id. 1 Serv. Comm'n, 658 P.2d 601, 621 (Utah 1983); see also Salt Lake Citizens Cong., 846 P.2d at 1251 (<HOLDING>). 15 . See, e.g., Hindmarsh v. Mock, 138 Idaho

A: holding that we review agency determinations of law de novo
B: holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts
C: holding that agency regulations cannot be applied retroactively unless congress has so authorized the administrative agency and the language of the regulations require it
D: recognizing that because claim preclusions purposes are advanced utah courts have applied the doctrine to administrative agency determinations since at least 1950
D.