With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". March 15, 2017 Reconsiderations denied March 29, 2017 Hall Booth Smith, Joel L. McKie, Andrew K. Hazen, for Redcedar, LLC. Weissman, Nowack, Curry & Wilco, Bradley A. Hutchins, David S. Klein, for CML-GA Social Circle, LLC. It is axiomatic that, “[e]vidence having a tendency to establish facts in issue is relevant and admissible, and no matter how slight the probative value, our law favors admission of relevant evidence.” Under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that the trial court erred in refusing to allow CML-GA to present evidence of the diminished value of the property following Redcedar’s removal of timber at trial for the limited purpose of demonstrating its entitlement to attorney fees and punitive damages. Thus, we reverse that p App. 734, 736 (415 SE2d 329) (1992) (<HOLDING>); Cordele Sash, Door & Lumber Co. v. Prudential

A: holding that a person who cut and removed timber pursuant to the direction of the person in possession of the property but without the written consent of the company holding legal title to the land could be held liable under the gtccs
B: holding that a person who cut and removed timber from a golf course was liable to the owners of the course as a matter of law under the gtccs regardless how the person subsequently disposed of the timber ie by using selling or discarding it
C: holding that a company that cut and removed timber from land that secured a debt held by the plaintiff was liable as a matter of law under an earlier version of the gtccs because it had not first obtained the written consent of the plaintiff
D: holding that a company that cut removed and sold timber from land that secured a debt held by the plaintiff was liable as a matter of law under the gtccs because it had not first obtained the written consent of the plaintiff
A.