Task: songer_frivol

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to some threshold issue at the trial court level. These issues are only considered to be present if the court of appeals is reviewing whether or not the litigants should properly have been allowed to get a trial court decision on the merits. That is, the issue is whether or not the issue crossed properly the threshhold to get on the district court agenda. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that either the original case was frivolous or raised only trivial issues and therefore was not suitable for actions on the merits?" Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

PER CURIAM:
On February 22, 1961 Mrs. Dorothy Blanco suffered certain injuries in a fall in one of appellee’s theaters due to appel-lee’s alleged negligence. She commenced an action for damages in New York State Supreme Court, and there moved for a general trial preference, apparently on the ground that the seriousness of her injuries warranted such a disposition of her case. The motion was denied and the case remained in its assigned position on the jury calendar. Mrs. Blanco appealed the denial of the motion, and the order was affirmed by the Appellate Division. On motion for reconsideration in the Supreme Court, the motion was again denied. Mrs. Blanco then petitioned the district court for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the denial of a general trial preference deprived Mrs. Blanco of the right to a jury trial, thus violating her right to due process of law under the fourteenth amendment. Basing jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (1970), petitioner requested that the district court order the New York Supreme Court to grant Mrs. Blanco a general preference. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. Mrs. Blanco was not deprived of a jury trial. The constitutional claim is frivolous.

Question: Did the court conclude that either the original case was frivolous or raised only trivial issues and therefore was not suitable for actions on the merits?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: B