With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 675 (1983) (denying injunctive relief based on a speculative belief in future harm). 21 . Wetherhorn, 156 P.3d at 381. 22 . In his complaint in superior court, Maness requested an order "enjoining Judges from issuing Ex Parte orders on the whims of vindictive people." 23 . None of the cases he cites appears to be directly on point. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804, 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979) (standard of proof for indefinite commitment); Evans v. McTaggart, 88 P.3d 1078 (Alaska 2004) (clear and convincing evidence standard required for granting non-parents custody of children over parents). Maness also cites Grant v. Johnson, 15 F.3d 146 (9th Cir.1994), but probably means to cite to Grant v. Johnson, 757 F.Supp. 1127 (D.Or.1991), dismissed as moot, 15 F.3d 146 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 24 . See Thoeni v. Consumer Elec. Servs., 151

A: holding that oregons procedure for appointment of temporary guardian for six months violated due process
B: holding that detention of approximately eight months violated due process
C: holding that dismissal was required where overall length of prosecution was 16 months state was responsible for 13 months of delay and six months of that delay was due to simple neglect
D: holding that oregons noticeofalibi rule violated defendants due process rights under fourteenth amendment where rule did not provide for reciprocal discovery
A.