Task: songer_direct1

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to determine the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision, coded as "liberal" or "conservative". Consider liberal to be for government tax claim; for person claiming patent or copyright infringement; for the plaintiff alleging the injury; for economic underdog if one party is clearly an underdog in comparison to the other, neither party is clearly an economic underdog; in cases pitting an individual against a business, the individual is presumed to be the economic underdog unless there is a clear indication in the opinion to the contrary; for debtor or bankrupt; for government or private party raising claim of violation of antitrust laws, or party opposing merger; for the economic underdog in private conflict over securities; for individual claiming a benefit from government; for government in disputes over government contracts and government seizure of property; for government regulation in government regulation of business; for greater protection of the environment or greater consumer protection (even if anti-government); for the injured party in admiralty - personal injury; for economic underdog in admiralty and miscellaneous economic cases. Consider the directionality to be "mixed" if the directionality of the decision was intermediate to the extremes defined above or if the decision was mixed (e.g., the conviction of defendant in a criminal trial was affirmed on one count but reversed on a second count or if the conviction was afirmed but the sentence was reduced). Consider "not ascertained" if the directionality could not be determined or if the outcome could not be classified according to any conventional outcome standards.

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment for defendant in an action for trespass tried before the judge below without a jury. The alleged trespass consisted in the entry upon plaintiff’s premises by an employee of the defendant telephone company and the removal by him of telephone equipment belonging to defendant. We agree with the judge below that no trespass was shown. Plaintiff was in arrears in the payment of charges due the telephone company and had been advised that the equipment would be removed unless these were paid. The company’s employee was admitted to the premises by plaintiff's minor daughter who made no objection to the removal of the equipment. No breach of the peace was involved, no damage was done to plaintiff’s property and the removal of the equipment upon failure to pay the charges therefor was authorized by the company’s rules and regulations, to which plaintiff assented when the equipment was installed. The case was well summarized by the trial judge as follows:
“I find no facts warranting the inference that the conduct of defendant’s agent in removing the telephone from plaintiff’s home amounted to a breach of the peace or that it reasonably tended to such. Moreover there is no evidence warranting the inference that defendant’s agent acted in reckless or wilful disregard of plaintiff’s rights. The parties had agreed that, in the event of the non-payment of any sum due (the complaint admits a sum due), the defendant might without notice terminate the contract, sever connections and remove its equipment from plaintiff’s premises. The defendant did no more than what the plaintiff agreed it might do: and there was no force or violence used or threatened.”
Nothing need be added to what was said by the District Judge in his findings and conclusions. See also Plate v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., D.C., 98 F.Supp. 355.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the ideological directionality of the court of appeals decision?
A. conservative
B. liberal
C. mixed
D. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A