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:
In this diversity case governed by Texas law we certified to the Supreme Court of Texas the following questions:
(a) Whether the doctrine of partial performance permits a broker to maintain an action for a real estate commission where the memorandum evidencing the agreement refers to “outside brokers” but does not provide a complete listing of their names.
(b) Whether parol evidence may be admitted to identify the broker to whom a commission is owed in an action to recover a real estate commission based on a document signed by the purchaser acknowledging a debt to “outside brokers” but not providing a complete listing of their names.
The Supreme Court of Texas responded with an opinion that holds:
Neither parol evidence nor partial performance may be used to identify a broker when the reference in the writing required by the Real Estate Licensing Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6573a, § 20(b) (Vernon Supp.1992), is to outside brokers. Accordingly, both certified questions are answered in the negative.
Boyert v. Tauber, 834 S.W.2d 60 (S.Ct.Tex. 1992).
The opinion of the Supreme Court of Texas disposes of the issues in this case. Accordingly, the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Laszlo N. Tauber is affirmed.
We express to the Supreme Court of Texas our appreciation for its acceptance of our certification and its prompt decision on the certified questions.
AFFIRMED.

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

Answer: D