With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Burt Boiler Works, Inc., 360 So.2d 327 (Ala.1978)[) ]. The court did not discuss choice-of-law. The Galbreath decision suggests that the Alabama court might apply Alabama law in determining the liability of a majority shareholder to the minority. But again, the court has not definitively answered the question. “Although the Alabama courts have not yet analyzed whether the law of the state of incorporation applies to the determination of the duty majority shareholder’s [sic] owed the minority, this Court believes that the Alabama court would follow the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws as that court has applied the Restatement’s choice-of-law rules in similar situations involving corporations. See International Insurance Co. v. Johns, 874 F.2d 1447, 1458, n. 19 (11th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). “In Massey v. Disc Mfg., Inc., 601 So.2d 449

A: holding a per curiam affirmance from a florida district court of appeal is not renewable by the florida supreme court
B: holding that where florida state court had not addressed choiceoflaw issues with regard to directors liability federal court could presume that florida court would follow the restatement second of conflict of laws based on the florida courts past reliance on the treatise
C: holding that florida courts would apply florida law to contracts insuring real property located within the state
D: recognizing that publication in the laws of florida or the florida statutes gives all citizens constructive notice of the consequences of their actions
B.