With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". generally Stewart v. Coalter, 48 F.3d 610, 613-14 (1st Cir.1995). 33 . This standard is similar, but not identical, to the formulation used by federal courts in criminal cases to determine whether the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal under the reasonable doubt standard of proof. See generally Curley v. United States, 160 F.2d 229, 232-33 (D.C.Cir.1947); United States v. Taylor, 464 F.2d 240, 243 (2nd Cir.1972); see also 2A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 467 (3rd ed.2000). 34 . See Southwest Key Program, Inc. v. Gil-Perez, 81 S.W.3d 269, 270 (Tex.2002) (rendering judgment against the plaintiff in a negligence case when there was legally insufficient evidence of proximate cause); Vista Chevrolet, Inc. v. Lewis, 709 S.W.2d 176, 176-77 (Tex. 1986) (<HOLDING>); see also In re D.T., 34 S.W.3d 625, 642

A: holding that the obviousness of an error is hard to determine where there is no settled appellate law on point
B: holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced
C: holding that rendition is remedy for no evidence
D: holding that rendition is proper when a no evidence point is sustained
D.