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.
Based on the record presented, the order of the District Court granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the City of Omaha is not appealable. The District Court granted the motion on the basis that
* * * Section 2-318 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Rev.Neb.Stat. Section 90-2-318) precludes the City of Omaha’s reliance on the third-party beneficiary theory to prove either express or implied warranty because of the Code’s limitations of warranties to “natural persons.”
It appears from the face of the complaint, however, that the City of Omaha has advanced and still asserts common law theories of recovery that have not been considered by the District Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
The complaint in this case was filed on November 20, 1970. The matter, thus, should be tried properly on remand.

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

Answer: D