Task: songer_othadmis

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" 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". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless". 

ORDER
The order filed July 11, 1988, 851 F.2d 1207 is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end of the paragraph before “REVERSED and REMANDED.”:
The district court should exercise its discretion as to whether considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness still weigh in favor of its exercise of pendent jurisdiction or whether it should remand to the state court.
ORDER
On June 13, 1988, the Supreme Court vacated this court’s judgment in this case and remanded for further consideration in light of Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, Inc., — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 1877, 100 L.Ed.2d 410 (1988). Lingle holds the state law claims that do not require interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement are not preempted by section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. We accordingly reverse our holding that DeSoto’s state law claim was preempted by section 301 and remand to the district court for further proceedings on the state law claim. The district court should exercise its discretion as to whether considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness still weigh in favor of its exercise of pendent jurisdiction or whether it should remand to the state court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Yes, but error was harmless
D. Mixed answer
E. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: E