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 assertion of federal power in federalism cases; "not ascertained" for conflict between states; for attorney; for the validity of challenged selective service regulation; or for the government interest in dispute with someone attempting to resist induction; for the authority of the challenged official in challenge to magistrates or referees; for defendant in Indian law - criminal; for the claim of the Indian or tribal rights in Indian law; for federal or state authority in Indian law vs state and federal authority; for interest of US or US firms when opposed by foreign firms or government; for US government if opposed to either US or foreign business in international law; for government regulation in immigration 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.
Appealing from a judgment which, dismissing plaintiff’s suit upon defendant’s motion, also dismissed intervenor from the suit, intervenor is here insisting that the judgment as to him must be reversed because (1), though permissive and not of right, his intervention was not ancillary but independent, and, therefore, survived the dismissal of plaintiff’s suit; and (2) it stated a recoverable claim for commissions due him, as agent of plaintiff, against both plaintiff and defendant.
We agree with intervenor: that, though permissive and not of right, his intervention was not ancillary to, but independent of, plaintiff’s suit; that, as such it survived the dismissal of that suit; that it stated a claim against the plaintiff; and that, because it did, the judgment must be reversed as to plaintiff, with costs to intervenor. No recoverable claim, however, was stated as to defendant. The judgment dismissing the intervention as to it is, therefore, affirmed with costs to defendant against the plaintiff-appellant because, having failed to prosecute it, its appeal is dismissed, and against the intervenor-ap-peliant because, as to the defendant, the judgment he appealed from is affirmed.
Plaintiff’s appeal is Dismissed. On in-tervenor’s appeal the judgment is affirmed as to defendant and reversed as to plaintiff.
. 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Rule 24, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.; Hunt Tool Co. v. Moore, 5 Cir., 212 F.2d 685.
. Adopting plaintiff’s allegations that it had entered into a contract with defendant for the sale to, and purchase by, it of 2000 air conditioners, intervenor’s claim was that it had made the sale as agent for the plaintiff for a commission of 2 percent of the gross sales price, or $6997.26, agreed upon between them.

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

Answer: C