With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on appeal. 3 In State v. Ferguson, 202 Wis. 2d 233, 549 N.W.2d 718 (1996) (Ferguson II), the supreme court reversed on a ground not addressed in State v. Ferguson, 195 Wis. 2d 174, 536 N.W.2d 116 (Ct. App. 1995) (Ferguson I), when it concluded that § 973.06(l)(c), STATS., did not authorize assessment of laboratory expenses against the defendant because such expenses were not "fees or disbursements." Although the supreme court did not reach the issue of whether the expense related to the services of an expert witness, it did not specifically reverse our holding on that issue in Ferguson I, 195 Wis. 2d at 180, 536 N.W.2d at 118. Therefore, that holding retains precedential value. See Sweeney v. General Cas. Co., 220 Wis. 2d 183, 192, 582 N.W.2d 735, 738 (Ct. App. 1998) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). 4 Because we conclude that § 973.06(l)(c),

A: holdings of the court of appeals not specifically reversed by the supreme court retain precedential value
B: holding that directly applicable supreme court decisions require this court to overrule its prior holdings
C: holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value
D: holdings of this court not addressed on the merits by the supreme court remain binding despite reversal on other grounds
A.