Task: songer_judgdisc

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on the abuse of discretion by the trial judge favor the appellant?" This includes the issue of whether the judge actually had the authority for the action taken, but does not include questions of discretion of administrative law judges. 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".

PER CURIAM.
In this ease, which was decided by this court on January 13, 1954, 209 F.2d 375, the defendant has filed a motion to recall and clarify the mandate of this court which reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the cause with instructions to proceed in accordance with the opinion of this court. The district court in an opinion, 130 F.Supp. 691, filed April 18, 1955 rightly concluded that the issue, and the only one remaining in the case, to be tried on remand was whether the cable of acceptance of Fernseh, G.m.b.H., was sent prior to 1:10 P.M. (E.S.T.) in Washington, D. C., June 14, 1941, and hence prior to the effective time of Executive Order 8785. Under the mandate the defendant may not now assert, as he seeks for the first time to do, that the time of the completion of the contract is to be determined by the application of German law to be the time of the receipt of the cable of acceptance by the plaintiff instead of the time of its sending.
The motion will be denied.

Question: Did the court's ruling on the abuse of discretion by the trial judge favor the appellant? This includes the issue of whether the judge actually had the authority for the action taken, but does not include questions of discretion of administrative law judges.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D