Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Billboard Act then in effect directed that “the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising in areas adjacent to the interstate and primary highway systems [shall] be regulated in accordance with sections 226.500 to 226.600 and rules and regulations promulgated by the state highways and transportation commission.” Whiteco’s applications were for four new billboards in locations that were subject to the Missouri Billboard Act. The City could not have relied on ordinance number 13191 in 1994 to lawfully deny Whiteco’s applications. Existing precedent established that municipal ordinances banning all outdoor advertising signs were preempted by the Missouri Billboard Act. See Nat’l Advert. Co. v. Missouri State Highway & Transp. Comm’n, 862 S.W.2d 953, 955-56 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) . National Advertising did not expressly
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law
B. holding that a complete prohibition on outdoor advertising signs imposed by a municipal ordinance is preempted by the missouri billboard act
C. holding that when a judicial office is created by legislative act or municipal ordinance  the office is regarded as a de facto office until the act or ordinance is declared invalid
D. holding that municipal ordinance was preempted by frsa and void under supremacy clause
E. holding that a courts order invalidating part of a city billboard ordinance did not moot a claim for damages arising from that invalidated portion of the ordinance
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.