do we normally decide only questions presented by the parties.” United States v. Samuels, 808 F.2d 1298, 1301 (8th Cir.1987) (R. Arnold, J., concurring in denial of reh’g en banc). The question of whether the court should overrule Layman and its progeny should be reserved for another day. Wynne, J., joins. 2 . Perhaps the most famous example of adherence to statutory precedent is the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258, 92 S.Ct. 2099, 32 L.Ed.2d 728 (1972), in which the Court was asked for the third time in fifty years to rule that professional baseball’s reserve system was within the reach of federal antitrust laws. See Fed. Baseball Club of Baltimore v. Nat’l League of Prof'l Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200, 42 S.Ct. 465, 66 L.Ed. 898 (1922) (<HOLDING>); Toolson v. N.Y. Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356,
holding that a chapter 11 debtor who was in the business of providing plastic and reconstructive surgery to the general public met the definition of a health care business under  10127a holding that floods reaffirmation of toolson extended immunity to the business of baseball holding that the business of providing public baseball games for profit between clubs pf professional baseball players was not within the scope of federal antitrust laws holding that a chapter 11 debtor which provided services to the public only ancillary to its primary function of administrative support to a physicians group was not a health care business within the scope of  10127a holding that earlier state court litigation did not bar assertion of antitrust claims in a later federal suit since the antitrust claims could not have been brought in state court