With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the doctrines of absolute judicial immunity and qualified public official immunity. See Parker v. State, 337 Md. 271, 284-85, 653 A.2d 436, 442 (1995) (noting that this Court has “distinguished between the qualified and narrower immunity for discretionary acts generally accorded to public officials, and absolute judicial immunity, which, unlike qualified immunity, applies regardless of the nature of the tort and even where the suit against the judge alleges that he acted in bad faith, maliciously or corruptly” (citations omitted)). While the parties, the trial court, and the intermediate appellate court in this case have focused on the concept of qualified judicial immunity, no such doctrine has been adopted by the Maryland Court of Appeals. See Parker, 337 Md. at 283, 653 A.2d at 442 (<HOLDING>). The doctrines of absolute judicial immunity

A: holding that the common law principle of absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts has neither been abrogated nor been modified in maryland emphasis added
B: holding that the statutes abrogated the common law
C: recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction
D: recognizing same judicial estoppel principle under kansas law
A.