With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Cummins Engine, 114 Nev. 1304, 1312, 971 P.2d 1251, 1256 (1998). 7 See Diaz v. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 88, 93, 993 P.2d 50, 54 (2000). 8 Dangberg Holdings, 115 Nev. at 138, 978 P.2d at 316 (observing that, on a petition for writ of certiorari, if the challenged act was within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, this court’s review ends even if the act was erroneous); Round Hill, 97 Nev. at 603-04, 637 P.2d at 536 (stating that mandamus relief is not available absent a manifest abuse of discretion). 9 J. A. Bock, Annotation, Validity and Effect of Provision in Contract Against Mechanic’s Lien, 76 A.L.R.2d 1087, 1089 (1961); see, e.g., Durant Const., Inc. v. Gourley, 336 N.W.2d 856 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983); see also Landvatter Ready Mix, Inc. v. Buckey, 963 S.W.2d 298, 301 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (<HOLDING>). 10 See, e.g., 770 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann.

A: recognizing that it has long been the rule that a mechanics lien claim may be waived
B: holding that notice to counsel may be waived
C: holding that a claim that sovereign immunity has been waived is itself waived if not argued on appeal
D: holding a party was limited to recovery provided for by the strict terms of the mechanics lien statute
A.