Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
section 2000e-5(g)(2)(B). Even still, under a proper application of Farrar a court should grant attorney’s fees whenever a plaintiff has successfully established a violation of section 2000e-2(m) and obtained either declaratory or some limited form of injunctive relief. Thus, under Farrar the answer to the first question posed above remains the same because it will only be under the most unusual circumstances that a plaintiff will not be awarded either of these remedies. To be eligible to recover attorney’s fees under section 1988 (the statute at issue in Farrar) a party must be the “prevailing party.” In Farrar the Supreme Court first held that a plaintiff who recovers only nominal damages is in fact a prevailing party for purposes of section 1988. 506 U.S. at 114, 113 S.Ct. at 574 . The Court then went on to decide what amount
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding jurys finding of liability on partys claim does not bestow prevailing party status when party received no relief on that claim
B. holding the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained in response to the question whether a nominal damages award is the sort of technical insignificant victory that cannot confer prevailing party status
C. holding that a plaintiff who obtained a preliminary injunction was a prevailing party because he obtained significant courtordered relief that accomplished one of the main purposes of his lawsuit
D. holding that the party prevailing on the significant issues in the litigation is the party that should be considered the prevailing party for attorneys fees
E. holding that the prevailing party inquiry does not turn on the magnitude of the relief obtained
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.