With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". section 725.9 only preempted the city from enacting an ordinance regulating the dissemination of obscene materials to minors. Id. After looking at the legislative history of section 725.9, we determined section 725.9 was not limited to the dissemination of obscene materials to minors and instead restricted governmental subdivisions from enacting any local ordinances regulating conduct covered in chapter 725, now chapter 728. Id. at 374. The United States Supreme Court had come to the same conclusion when reviewing a conviction from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa for a violation of a federal statute prohibiting the mailing of obscene materials. See Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 293-95, 97 S.Ct. 1756, 1760-61, 52 L.Ed.2d 324, 331-32 (1977) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, in Chelsea Theater, we held the

A: holding section 72811s predecessor section 7259 preempted all local regulation of obscene materials and was not restricted in application to the dissemination of obscene materials to minors
B: holding that freestanding predecessor of section 7112 applies to all elements of claim remanded by the court or board
C: holding that fedrcivp 26b3 does not require absolute protection for opinion work product and noting that these materials may be discovered and admitted when mental impressions are at issue in the case and the need for the materials is compelling
D: recognizing that application of section 507a7 should be coincidental with application of section 523a5 because of identical language in the two statutes
A.