With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1934), 356 Ill. 340, 343-46 (deficient signatures on petition in court-approved annexation challenged by quo warranta; burden of justification was on defendant); accord People ex rel. Curtin v. Heizer (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 438, 441 (collateral attack upon proceedings of county court purporting to establish fire district permissible to reach jurisdictional defect in petition); People ex rel. Mills v. Fairfield Community High School District No. 225 (1947), 397 Ill. 233 (in annexation case, where record of court proceedings showed court did not have jurisdiction of subject matter because of defective petition, attempted judgment was a nullity that could be challenged by quo warranta despite court’s finding that it had jurisdiction); see City of Wood Dale, 244 Ill. App. 3d at 834-36 (<HOLDING>); People ex rel. Village of Long Grove v.

A: holding that a district court had jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction
B: holding that a reviewable final order is necessary for subjectmatter jurisdiction
C: holding that deficient jurisdictional facts insufficient number of valid signatures in petition will not confer subjectmatter jurisdiction for court to act
D: holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction
C.