Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
goal in construing statute is to fulfill intent of legislature). ¶ 132 Before 1985, § 40-254(A) provided that a party dissatisfied with a Commission decision could commence an action “to vacate and set aside” the decision. A.R.S. § 40-254, Historical and Statutory Notes. Section 40-254(C) was the same as it reads today. Thus, before 1985, the superior court indisputably lacked authority to grant any relief under the statute other than affirming, modifying or setting aside a Commission decision. See Sun City Water Co. v. Arizona Corp. Comm’n, 113 Ariz. 464, 466, 556 P.2d 1126, 1128 (1976) (concluding court lacked authority to affirm Commission decision in part and remand another portion); Arizona Corp. Comm’n v. Fred Harvey Transp. Co., 95 Ariz. 185, 190, 388 P.2d 236, 239 (1964) . ¶ 133 In 1985, the legislature amended §
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court lacked power to decide personal jurisdiction issue already decided by district of columbia superior court
B. holding district court lacked authority to order placement at a school not approved by the state
C. holding superior court lacked authority to remand to commission
D. holding the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the circuit court had the power to remand the agency decision for further proceedings
E. holding that where a superior court judge was named a defendant in an action for a writ of mandamus the prosecuting attorney is the proper court representative of the superior court judge
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.