Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
trial appears to have been directed toward whether or not Palmer Johnson performed more than the services ordered and not whether there were certain services ordered which it failed to perform. Wisconsin law and not federal principles of res judicata or collateral estoppel governs the effect of the state court judgment on this action. 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Winters v. Lavine, 574 F.2d 46 (2d Cir. 1978); Omernick v. LaRocque, 406 F.Supp. 1156 (W.D.Wis.1976); Allen v. McCurry, __U.S. __at__, 101 S.Ct. 411 at 415-16, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980). Thus, this Court must give to the Door County Circuit Court judgment at least the preclusive effect which the courts of the State of Wisconsin would give it. Allen v. McCurry, supra; Williams v. Ocean Transport Lines, Inc., 425 F.2d 1183, 1189 (3d Cir. 1970) . Casey argues that neither of the doctrines of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a federal court in diversity jurisdiction must apply state substantive law
B. holding that after removal of diversity case to federal court the federal court may grant summary judgment notwithstanding earlier denial of summary judgment motion by state court
C. holding that a federal court acting under its federal as opposed to diversity jurisdiction may also give greater preclusive effect to a state court judgment than the state courts would give
D. holding that courts must look to the state that rendered the judgment to determine whether the courts of that state would afford the judgment preclusive effect
E. holding that state court judgment settling shareholders state and federal claims had preclusive effect in federal court even though shareholders could not have pressed their federal claims in state court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.