With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Clarke v. Bettenhausen (1921), 296 Ill. 373, 376, 129 N.E. 803; but see Hester v. Kamykowski (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 481, 489, 150 N.E.2d 196 (taking exception to Browning, holding that a petition for judicial review could name multiple defendants seeking different offices where the issues and judgment would be identical). Although petitioner sought review of four separate Board deci sions within a single pleading, the pleading includes five separate counts. Each count seeks separate review of a decision related to each candidate. The five counts are viewed as separate and distinct causes of action (see 735 ILCS 5/2 — 603, 2 — 613 (West 1994)), based upon similar factual allegations and the same issues. (See Ras v. Allan Anthony Electric Corp. (1965), 55 Ill. App. 2d 176, 204 N.E.2d 797 (<HOLDING>).) If originally filed as separate actions, it

A: 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
B: holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property
C: holding that earlier suits different legal theory did not save the later action from the res judicata bar because the central factual issues are identical
D: holding the court had jurisdiction to hear a threecount complaint premised upon three separate causes of action naming three separate defendants where the counts involved identical factual allegations and legal issues
D.