With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2d 266, ¶ 35 (discussing the reasoning in Brunst as being that "unless these 'time immemorial' duties were constitutionally protected from interference by others, the constitutional provision securing the people the right to choose sheriffs would become meaningless"). It seems incongruous to us that the policy of keeping duties within the office of sheriff because he is elected and answerable to the electors is consistent with the holdings in WPPA II (and, more recently Brown County), where the court held that because the duty was characteristically the sheriffs, he can, as a result, contract with third parties for the carrying out of the duty. Yet, we are bound by WPPA II (and its interpretation of Brunst) and Brown County. See Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166, 190, 560 N.W.2d 246 (1997) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 29. For the reasons stated, we reverse the

A: holding that court of appeals may adopt such waiver rule
B: holding that one panel cannot overrule a prior panels published decision
C: holding court of appeals erred in refusing to take judicial notice of published puc order
D: holding that the court of appeals may not overrule modify or withdraw language from a previously published decision of the court of appeals
D.