With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (case-by-case analysis required in undue influence cases because they are often proved by circumstantial evidence); Knowlton v. Schultz, 179 Ohio App. 3d 497, 508, 902 N.E.2d 548 (2008) (undue influence usually proved by circumstantial evidence); In re Estate of Johnson, 340 S.W.3d 769, 777 (Tex. App. 2011) (exertion of undue influence is subtle and usually involves extended course of dealings and circumstances; usually established by circumstantial evidence). That necessity of establishing undue influence through circumstantial evidence gave rise to the “suspicious circumstances doctrine” in a common-law claim of undue influence. See Feeney and Carmichael, Will Contests in Kansas, 64 J.K.B.A. 22, 27 (September 1995); see also In re Estate of Maddox, 60 S.W.3d 84, 88 (Tenn. App. 2001) (<HOLDING>). Over a century ago in this state, Sellards v.

A: recognizing that in most cases proving undue influence must be done circumstantially through the existence of suspicious circumstances
B: holding that inquiry notice exists where a reasonable investor of ordinary intelligence would have discovered the suspicious information and recognized it as suspicious
C: recognizing difficulty in proving conspiracy
D: holding that an inquiry into trip destination is permissible even in the absence of suspicious circumstances
A.