Task: songer_weightev

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 factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?" This includes discussions of whether the litigant met the burden of proof. 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.
Put simply, the question in this Civil Rights action is whether, following the enactment of Pub.L. 96-364, 94 Stat. 1310 (1980), amending 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(15), the State of New Hampshire, in 1981 and 1982, was prohibited, in determining an individual’s unemployment weekly payments, from deducting — or crediting — the amount reasonably attributable to that week that the individual was receiving from a government pension payable to him on account of his having served 20 years or more in the Armed Services. RSA 282-A:28, as it then read. The district court ruled in favor of the State. We affirm, on the basis of the recent Fourth Circuit opinion in Watkins v. Cantrell, 736 F.2d 933 (4th Cir.1984), in which the court answered fully exactly the same arguments that appellant makes today.
We add that we are offended by appellant’s concept that because of an at least reasonable statutory interpretation by the State he should receive, if it proved mistaken, in addition to back payments and counsel fees, $100,000 damages for emotional distress and a like sum for punitive damages. A state is obliged to make statutory interpretations for the benefit of its citizens, and it should not have to do so in terrorem. Cf. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 259-63, 267-69, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 2755-58, 2759-61, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981) (policies of deterrence and punishment of willful wrongdoing may in appropriate circumstances warrant awards of punitive damages against officials personally, but do not support such awards against municipalities; innocent taxpayers should not bear this burden).
Affirmed; costs to appellee.

Question: Did the factual interpretation by the court or its conclusions (e.g., regarding the weight of evidence or the sufficiency of evidence) favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D