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 appeal arises out of an action filed July 13, 1953, in which appellants sued for damages claimed to have been incurred from fraud practiced by appellee Carpenter and his agent J. F. Sheppord in the sale to appellants of interests in numerous mineral leases of land located in five counties of the State of Kentucky and in dealings between the parties growing out of such sales. The District Court held that appellants’ claims resting upon and arising out of transactions during the years 1946 and 1947 are barred by the five-year statute of limitations. Kentucky Revised Statutes, Sections 413.120(12) and 413.130 (3). As to subsequent activities of appellees involved herein, the court held that they were covered by an agreement executed April 10, 1951, between appellee Carpenter and his agent Shepperd and appellants herein, whereby, in consideration of assignment by appellee Carpenter and Shepperd of certain stock, and in consideration of the release by appellee Carpenter and Shepperd of certain claims, a full and final compromise and settlement of all controversies to date and release of all claims between the parties were effected.
Each of these holdings is plainly correct under the Kentucky statutes and applicable decisions.
The court, also, in extensive findings of fact, specifically found that fraud was not proved in the numerous transactions attacked by appellants. The testimony as to these matters was in general controverted. The court’s findings of fact are sustained by the record and are binding here. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.
Numerous other actions claimed to grow out of fraudulent dealings between appellee Carpenter and Shepperd and various parties are pending in the District Court. The decision herein necessarily applies only to the instant case and to transactions between appellee Carpenter and Shepperd and the particular appellants herein.
The judgment is affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and memorandum opinion filed by the District Court August 16, 1956.

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

Answer: A