With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Act ("the CEEBA")." Br. of Appellant at 11-12. Finally, he argues that allowing the teachers' grievances to be used as evidence could have an extreme "chilling effect" on a teacher's right to file grievances. Levee argues that Beeching has waived this issue because he moved to admit five of the grievances into evidence. In fact, Beeching obtained admission of five grievances into evidence before Levee attempted to offer any of the grievances. Tr. pp. 188, 194, 196-98. A party cannot invite error and then request relief on appeal based upon that ground. See Crowl v. Berryhill, 678 N.E.2d 828, 830 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). An error invited by the complaining party is not subject to review by this court. Id.; see also, City of Lake Station v. Rogers, 500 N.E.2d 235, 239 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). By seeking and obtaining admission of five

A: holding that for error to be preserved on appeal with regard to admission of evidence in violation of a ruling on a motion in limine that the evidence is inadmissible an objection should be made at the time the evidence is offered
B: holding that error in the admission of evidence at trial is waived on appeal when the complaining party submits evidence to substantially the same effect
C: holding that we would not review a claim of error regarding the admission of evidence when the defendant stipulated to its admission at trial
D: holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial
B.