With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Francis, 343 Ark. 104, 31 S.W.3d 841 (2000). Appellant maintains that the issues were fully contested in good faith prior to the entry of the 2007 order, that the suit continues to involve the same parties, that the trial court had jurisdiction, and that the agreed order is a judgment upon the merits of the case. However, as pointed out by appellee, appellant failed to obtain a ruling on the issue of the application of res judicata to this action. Failure to do so prevents this court from addressing the issue. The Ar kansas Supreme Court has held, in appeals in both the civil and the criminal context, that an appellant’s failure to obtain a ruling from the fact-finder precludes appellate review. See, e.g., Simpson Housing Solutions, LLC v. Hernandez, 2009 Ark. 480, 347 S.W.3d 1 (<HOLDING>); Kelley v. State, 375 Ark. 483, 292 S.W.3d 297

A: holding that where a party does not adequately brief an argument we need not address it on appeal
B: holding that the supreme court will not address an argument on appeal if a party has failed to obtain a ruling below
C: holding that a reviewing court will not address those issues not raised below or not addressed by the trial court
D: holding that a party must obtain a distinct ruling on an issue in order to raise it on appeal
B.