Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
law. Central Wharf, 57 S.W. at 983. We believe this principle applies equally to Article 3, sec. 56. See JC-0101. Our conclusion that this constitutional provision does not limit the legislature’s inherent power to repeal laws is further supported by decisions from other states construing similar constitutional provisions. See People ex rel. Williamson v. Rinner, 52 Cal.App. 747, 199 P. 1066 (3 Dist.1921)(citing Central Wharf and numerous other cases with approval, Court held act which repealed special act creating school district did not violate constitutional provision against creation of local or special laws because the legislature’s inherent power to repeal is not expressly limited by the state constitution); People ex rel. Rogerson v. Crawley, 274 Ill. 139, 113 N.E. 119 (1916); State v. Prather, 84 Kan. 169, 112 P. 829
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning
B. holding that a city charter is a law under the whistleblower act
C. holding that constitutional provision which prohibited local and special laws did not limit legislatures inherent power to repeal the corporate privileges of a particular community and therefore act which repealed the charter of the city of memphis was not unconstitutional
D. holding that legislation which repealed the charter of the city of jacksonville did not violate constitutional provision prohibiting local or special laws which change the charter of a city
E. holding that city attorneys promise in an oral settlement agreement for city to annex and rezone land was within the legal authority of the city of joliet to accomplish and were not absolutely void acts per se therefore city could be estopped from avoiding enforcement of contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.