Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
652-53, 75 S.E. 930 (1912); In re Hart, 8 Pa. 32, 37 (1848); Cupp v. Frazier’s Heirs, 239 Ark. 77, 81-83, 387 S.W.2d 328 (1965). 18 Annot., Rights of Inheritance in Ancestral Property as Between Kindred of Whole and Half Blood, 141 A.L.R. 976, 982 (1942). See 23 Am. Jur. 2d Descent and Distribution § 84, at 820; 26A C.J.S. Descent and Distribution § 11, at 543; and Comment, Statutory Treatment of Ancestral Estate and the Half Blood in Intestate Succession, 42 Yale L.J. 101, 103 (1932). 19 See, e.g., Gardner v. Collins, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 58, 94, 7 L. Ed. 347 (1829); Dale v. Connolly, 10 N.J. Misc. ); In re Estate of Edwards, 273 N.W.2d 118 (S.D. 1978); McDonnall v. Drawz, 212 Minn. 283, 3 N.W.2d 419, 141 A.L.R. 970 (1942); In re Estate of Belshaw, 190 Cal. 278, 212 P. 13 (1923). But see  Rotenbach v. Young, 119 Misc. 267, 196 N.Y.S.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a portion of a district courts summary judgment order that determines which facts a party may or may not be able to prove at trial is not appealable
B. holding that an employer seeking modification must show a change in claimants physical condition
C. holding that halfblood claimants may not inherit
D. holding that it may not
E. holding that a party may not raise a claim on appeal that was not presented to the trial court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.