With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Donnelly, 397 U.S. 286, 296, 90 S.Ct. 1033, 1039, 25 L.Ed.2d 312 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring) (“[T]he rights of the parties should be considered frozen ... when the transaction is beyond challenge either because the statute of limitations has run or the rights of the parties have been fixed by litigation and have become res judicata.”). As Judge Dennis of the federal Fifth Circuit noted, despite the doctrine of full retroactivity announced in Harper, “[i]t is well established that the effect of even a fully retroactive jurisprudential decision is limited by certain independent overriding legal principles,” such as res judicata and statutes of limitations. Hulin v. Fibreboard Corp., 178 F.3d 316, 323 (5th Cir.1999); see Glazner v. Glazner, 347 F.3d 1212, 1221 n. 5 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). The rationale for this limitation is to

A: holding res judicata and statutes of limitations necessarily circumscribe the retroactive application of the rule we announce today
B: holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata
C: holding that application of res judicata requires that a prior adjudication include a ruling on the merits
D: holding no retroactive application
A.