With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Helsel v. City of North Myrtle Beach, 307 S.C. 24, 413 S.E.2d 821 (1992). Here, there have been no allegations that would support the elements of estoppel. 3) Standing County and City contend the trial judge erred in denying its motion to dismiss on the ground of standing. Appellants allege that since Evins failed to allege any personal stake in the action and there is no evidence in the record of a personal stake, she does not have standing. We disagr uing that its holding applies only to ultra vires acts and then only to those of immense public importance. We disagree. While in Baird there was an allegation of an ultra vires act, clearly in several cases, we have held a citizen has standing when ultra vires acts were not alleged. Berry v. Zahler, 220 S.C. 86, 66 S.E.2d 459 (1951) (<HOLDING>); Ashmore v. Greater Greenville Sewer Dist.,

A: holding that constitutional questions will not be decided if case can be decided on other grounds
B: holding that it may be decided as a matter of law
C: holding that questions of public interest originally encompassed in an action should be decided for future guidance
D: recognizing three exceptions to the mootness doctrine including when  the appeal contains questions of great public concern that in the interest of providing future guidance to the bar and the public we may address or    the issues are capable of repetition but evade review because of their fleeting or determinate nature
C.