With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 464, 470 (2014); Hoffer v. City of Boise, 151 Idaho 400, 403, 257 P.3d 1226, 1229 (2011); Renzo v. Idaho State Dep’t of Agr., 149 Idaho 777, 781, 241 P.3d 950, 954 (2010); Cordova v. Bonneville Cnty. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 93, 144 Idaho 637, 642-43, 167 P.3d 774, 779-80 (2007); Dorea Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Blackfoot, 144 Idaho 422, 426, 163 P.3d 211, 215 (2007); Nation v. State, Dep’t of Correction, 144 Idaho 177, 194, 158 P.3d 953, 970 (2007); O’Guin v. Bingham Cnty., 142 Idaho 49, 55-56, 122 P.3d 308, 314-15 (2005); Jensen v. State, 139 Idaho 57, 64-65, 72 P.3d 897, 904-05 (2003); Tomich v. City of Pocatello, 127 Idaho 394, 400, 901 P.2d 501, 507 (1995). In Block, we did cite Beehler v. Fremont County, 145 Idaho 656, 182 P.3d 713 (Ct. App. 2008), but it was for the proposition, “(<HOLDING>).” 156 Idaho at 490, 328 P.3d at 470. In

A: holding ic  12117 did not provide an exception after noting it has held that ic  6918a governed to the exclusion of all other standards when the case was brought under the itca
B: holding that for all intents and purposes the instant case is the same action that was brought previously we therefore find the application of the doctrine of the law of the case to be appropriate
C: recognizing that under puerto rico law res judicata may not apply if  public policy demands an exception but noting that this exception was successfully argued in only two cases and concluding that public policy does not demand an exception in this case
D: recognizing exception
A.