With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". sitting on the state supreme court following a justice’s death but before a new justice was named and sworn in. The court held that the district judge had, at least, de facto authority to sit with the supreme court, given that (1) the district judge had authority in other instances to sit with the court, and (2) the parties had knowledge of and did not object to the district judge’s participation. Id. at 87, 269 P. at 128. In light of the above authority, it is clear that although the statute granting commissioners authority to enter final judgments and impose sentence must be declared unconstitutional, actions taken by commissioners in the past are not subject to challenge since court commissioners in those cases acted with de facto authority. See, e.g., Farmer, 621 P.2d at 175 (<HOLDING>). However, it would be unconscionable to

A: holding that courts review judgments not statements in opinions
B: recognizing preclusive effect of judgments notwithstanding pending appeal or collateral attack
C: recognizing that judgments of arizona courts on foreign judgments will not be conclusive in the jurisdiction of origin
D: holding that judgments rendered by courts not having authority to enter such are not subject to collateral attack because judges entering those judgments were de facto officers
D.