Task: songer_direct2

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.

BUFFINGTON, Circuit Judge.
In this case it appears the defendant insured the lives of officers of a solvent family corporation. With the knowledge and consent of its stockholders, the premiums on these policies were paid for a number of years by the company as part compensation for the services of its insured officers. No debts of present creditors of the company existed during these transactions. Subsequently the company became insolvent, and its receiver, holding such premiums had been unlawfully paid from the assets of the company, now seeks to recover them from the insurance company. If the company had itself sued the latter, it is clear such action would not lie, and the company’s receiver has no higher rights than it.
In an able and exhaustive opinion, citing sustaining authorities, the trial judge demonstrated his warrant for giving binding instructions for the defendant. In view of the adequate discussion of the case in such opinion, we refrain from repetition, and limit ourselves to affirming the ease thereon.

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

Answer: A