Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
militancy to engender a thorough research and analysis of the major issues.” (Emphasis supplied [by Brimmer court].) Application of these elements leads us to conclude that the first is met because both the pro-life parties and the pro-choice .parties have current, concrete rights or interests relating to this controversy. Our judgment, either allowing the initiative to be included on the ballot, or precluding its inclusion, would effectively operate upon the factual dispute between these parties. Thus, the second element is satisfied. As to the third element, our determination will have the force and effect of a final judgment upon the rights, status, or other legal relationships of the real parties in interest. See Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass’n v. State, 645 P.2d 1163 (Wyo.1982) . We also perceive this matter as one involving
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment
B. holding that if a declaratory judgment will not end the controversy it is not proper
C. holding that the case or controversy requirement applies with equal force to actions for declaratory judgment
D. holding that actual controversy requirement is met where there is a substantial controversy between parties having adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment
E. holding that it is not
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.