Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 105 S.Ct. 1487, 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985)). For example, a state court injunction available before the deprivation “of any significant property interest” constitutes an adequate pre-deprivation remedy. See id. at 36-37, 110 S.Ct. 2238 (“[t]he State may choose to provide a form of ‘predeprivation process,’ for example, by authorizing taxpayers to bring suit to- enjoin imposition of a tax prior to its payment”); see also Nat’l Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Okla. Tax Comm’n, 515 U.S. 582, 587, 115 S.Ct. 2351, 132 L.Ed.2d 509 (1995) (explaining McKesson); Harper v. Va. Dept. of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86, 101-02, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (applying McKesson to Virginia’s tax laws); Rex Realty Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids, 322 F.3d 526, 529 (8th Cir.2003) ; McKenzie v. City of Chicago, 118 F.3d 552,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a court may grant a writ of mandamus if 1 the petitioner demonstrates that he lacks an adequate alternative 2 the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to the writ and 3 the court is convinced that issuing the writ is warranted
B. holding that notice of condemnation and availability of a state court injunction writ of mandamus and writ of certiorari in an eminent domain case satisfied due process
C. holding that to grant a writ of mandamus a court in the exercise of its discretion must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances
D. recognizing the right to petition for writ of certiorari as a form of appellate review
E. holding that common pleas erred in setting aside the writ of execution on the basis that the union erroneously filed a writ of execution instead of filing a writ of mandamus
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.