Task: songer_geniss

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Your task is to identify the issue in the case, that is, the social and/or political context of the litigation in which more purely legal issues are argued. Put somewhat differently, this field identifies the nature of the conflict between the litigants. The focus here is on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. Consider the following categories: "criminal" (including appeals of conviction, petitions for post conviction relief, habeas corpus petitions, and other prisoner petitions which challenge the validity of the conviction or the sentence), "civil rights" (excluding First Amendment or due process; also excluding claims of denial of rights in criminal proceeding or claims by prisoners that challenge their conviction or their sentence (e.g., habeas corpus petitions are coded under the criminal category); does include civil suits instituted by both prisoners and callable non-prisoners alleging denial of rights by criminal justice officials), "First Amendment", "due process" (claims in civil cases by persons other than prisoners, does not include due process challenges to government economic regulation), "privacy", "labor relations", "economic activity and regulation", and "miscellaneous".

PER CURIAM.
Katherine Lumpkin appeals from the District Court’s dismissal of her tort complaint against the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. She contends that the District Court erred in holding that the municipality is immune from suit under Arkansas law. Her complaint in this diversity action states that she was severely burned in 1958 by the City’s negligent placement of “smudge pots” containing hot oil near her home. The City moved to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The District Court issued a memorandum and order dismissing the complaint because, under Arkansas law on the date of the injury, tort actions against cities were barred by the doctrine of municipal immunity. We affirm the District Court’s dismissal on the basis of its memorandum.
Lumpkin also challenges the constitutionality of the Arkansas sovereign immunity doctrine. We find no merit in the challenge.
The order of the District Court is affirmed.
. Plaintiff, who was three years old at the time of her injury, filed her complaint the day before her twenty-first birthday.
. Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division.
. The parties agreed that Arkansas law was applicable to the action.

Question: What is the general issue in the case?
A. criminal
B. civil rights
C. First Amendment
D. due process
E. privacy
F. labor relations
G. economic activity and regulation
H. miscellaneous
Answer:

Answer: G