With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as in the state rendering judgment. Susan H. v. Keith L., 259 Neb. 322, 609 N.W.2d 659 (2000). The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits a Nebraska court from reviewing the merits of a judgment rendered in a sister state, but a foreign judgment can be collaterally attacked by evidence that the rendering court was without jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter. Walksalong v. Mackey, 250 Neb. 202, 549 N.W.2d 384 (1996). In the instant case, Bridgens seeks to collaterally attack the judgment on the basis that the Pennsylvania court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant the adoption. Whether the Pennsylvania court had subject matter jurisdiction is dependent upon Pennsylvania law. See Miller v. Kingsley, 194 Neb. 123, 230 N.W.2d 472 (1975) (<HOLDING>). Bridgens’ argument is based upon the

A: holding that federal courts must utilize the same preclusion doctrine as would be applied by a state court to administrative determinations by that state
B: holding federal courts are bound by state court determinations of state law
C: holding that only justification defenses would be recognized
D: holding only defenses that would be valid in rendering state can be relied upon by courts of another state
D.