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.
The above cause coming on to be heard upon arguments, briefs of counsel, and transcript of the record, it appears that appellee Potter is the assignee of a judgment of foreclosure against property of appellant; that upon appellee’s motion for an order of sale in such foreclosure proceedings, appellant filed answer and counterclaim, setting forth that appellee had entered into a contract to extend the time for payment of the judgment, that such extended period had not yet expired, and that appellee owed appellant, by virtue of the terms of a lease of the property in question, more than enough to pay the judgment debt. It appears from the pleadings that appellee is not a resident of the State of Kentucky and owns no property located therein. Section 378 of the Civil Code of Practice of Kentucky permits a judgment debtor to enjoin the enforcement of a judg- • ment against him if he has an action pending in which the judgment could be used as a set-off against the judgment creditor, where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent loss by insolvency, non-residence, or otherwise; and Section 285 of the Civil Code of Practice of Kentucky requires that the action seeking such injunction be brought in the court in which the judgment was rendered. But it appears that appellant has made no application to enjoin the enforcement of the judgment. The trial court correctly held that appellant could not, in proceedings for sale under judgment of foreclosure, and without injunctive proceedings, stay such proceedings and litigate its claim against appellee by way of answer and counter-claim.
Wherefore, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

Answer: B