With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the law as amended at the time of the appeal, unless doing so would interfere with a vested right. Whether a particular expectation rises to the level of a vested right is not capable of precise definition. In recognizing the conclusory nature of the inquiry, this court has defined a vested right as an expectation that is so far perfected that it cannot be taken away by legislation. Sanelli v. Glenview State Bank, 108 Ill. 2d 1, 20 (1985). Although not capable of precise definition, a vested right is a complete and unconditional demand or exemption that may be equated with a property interest. See, e.g., Sepmeyer v. Holman, 162 Ill. 2d 249 (1994) (finding that expiration of a statute of limitations creates a vested right that is beyond legislative interference); Collin, 302 Ill. at 275 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff initially argues that it has a

A: holding that owner of land sought to be taken for public use has a vested right to compensation pursuant to law in effect at time of filing of petition because filing of petition creates an immediate fixed and determinate right to any compensation
B: holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional
C: holding that if defendant could establish ineffective assistance of counsel in failure to file petition for review in his direct appeal then appropriate remedy would be to allow filing of petition for review out of time
D: holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim
A.