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.

HITZ, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal by defendant below from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia awarding plaintiff below alimony pendente lite upon a bill for limited divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The bill was filed February 5, 1930, together with a motion for alimony pendente lite.
On February 11,1930, separate motions to dismiss the bill and to strike out certain portions thereof were filed by the defendant.
The motion to dismiss was denied, and the motion to strike granted by one order dated February 17, 1930.
And on the same date, by a separate order of the court, alimony pendente lite was granted, from which order alone the defendant brings this appeal.
He assigns as error: (1) The denial of his motion to dismiss the amended bill of complaint; (2) the awarding of alimony pendente lite to the plaintiff.
It is unnecessary to consider the first assignment, or the defendant’s right or procedure on an appeal from the order denying Ms motion to dismiss the bill, because no appeal was taken from that order.
As to the second assignment of error, based upon the order awarding alimony pendente lite, it is settled that the granting or refusing of alimony pendente lite rests in the discretion of the trial court, not to be disturbed by the reviewing court, except for a clear abuse. Tolman v. Tolman, 1 App. D. C. 299; Shaw v. Shaw, 2 App. D. C. 204; Lesh v. Lesh, 21 App. D. C. 475; Reed v. Reed, 52 App. D. C. 36, 280 F. 1009; Wygodsky v. Wygodsky, 134 Md. 344, 106 A. 698.
But in this ease there is no showing of any abuse of discretion, and no answer to the bill into which we might look for such a showing.
The order appealed from is therefore affirmed, with costs.
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