With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was decided. The Plaintiffs contend that this court is bound by the holding of Smith v. Vowell because it was affirmed by the former Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the decisions of which are binding on this court. Plaintiffs are correct. This trial court is not free to disregard that case’s holdings. Even though Smith v. Vowell does not address some of the jurisdictional issues raised by the present case, it is still binding precedent. To the extent that Smith v. Vo-well addresses issues in the present case, this court must follow it. It was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit, and the opinions of the Fifth Circuit from that time period are binding on this court. See, Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 739 & n. 4 (11th Cir.1987) Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737, 739 & n. 4 (11th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). D. Other Issues Defendants offer two other

A: holding a summary affirmance of district court to be binding under bonner
B: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that a motion for summary judgment was not opposed
C: recognizing an appellee may assert additional independent grounds for affirmance of the judgment even if it does not file a notice of appeal as long as such grounds were raised in appellees motion for summary judgment
D: holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
A.