With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as an adjunct of the superior courts,” Wheeler v. Shoemaker, supra, 78 F.R.D. at 219, the court concluded that reference to the panel so established amounts to little more than furnishing the state court an opportunity to pass upon the claim initially. To refer the action to a panel appointed by the state court, therefore, is contrary to the congressional grant of diversity jurisdiction. Id. at 221. The district court rested this basis for its holding on Railway Co. v. Whitton’s Administrator, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 270, 20 L.Ed. 571 (1871), in which the Supreme Court held that Wisconsin could not limit enforcement of a state-created cause of action for wrongful death to its own courts. See also Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529, 532, 42 S.Ct. 188, 188, 66 L.Ed. 352 (1922) (<HOLDING>): [T]he Federal Constitution confers upon

A: holding unconstitutional an arkansas statute causing a foreign corporation to lose its license to do business within the state if either through filing an action or through removal it invoked the diversity jurisdiction of the federal courts
B: holding that the hague convention applied because while minnesota law permitted a foreign corporation to be served with process through the secretary of states office the applicable statute also required the secretary of state to mail a copy of the summons to the foreign corporation before service was effectuated
C: holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state
D: holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state
A.