Task: songer_subevid

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 civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court's interpretation of the substantial evidence rule support the government? For example, "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" or "more than a mere scintilla". This issue is present only when the court indicates that it is using this doctrine, rather than when the court is merely discussing the evidence to determine whether the evidence supports the position of the appellant or respondent." 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.
Leavitt appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Home Insurance Company, Inc. (“Home”), after the district court granted Home’s motion for summary judgment.
Home had written a comprehensive liability policy (general-automobile) in favor of its assured, Cripple Creek Resort, Inc. (“Cripple Creek”), sometime prior to May 3, 1964. It undertook to defend and to indemnify its assured under terms and conditions stated in the policy. On May 3, 1964, William Leavitt was killed in an automobile accident near Fairbanks, Alaska. Leavitt was riding as a passenger in an automobile driven by Russell Gillaspie, Jr.
On March 23, 1965, the administrator of Leavitt’s estate sued Gillaspie and Cripple Creek, claiming that Cripple Creek was liable for Leavitt’s wrongful death because it had served intoxicating liquor to Gillaspie, a minor who was then intoxicated, in violation of cited sections of the Alaskan statutes.
Cripple Creek tendered defense of the action to Home. Home denied coverage and refused to defend. Cripple Creek secured other counsel who settled the case by confessing judgment in favor of Leavitt’s estate for $100,000 plus costs and attorney’s fees and by obtaining the administrator’s agreement not to execute on the judgment so long as Cripple Creek prosecuted its action against Home.
On January 5, 1967, Home filed an action against Leavitt’s administrator and Cripple Creek seeking a declaration that it was not required to defend Cripple Creek against the wrongful death action and that it was not required to indemnify Cripple Creek upon its settlement of that litigation. Cripple Creek defaulted. Home and the administrator each sought summary judgment. The district court denied the administrator’s motion, granted Home’s motion, and this appeal followed.
We think Home was right in denying coverage. The wrongful death action filed against Cripple Creek fell within exclusion “(E)” of the policy, excluding from coverage liability imposed on the insured as an organization engaged in “selling * * * alcoholic beverages, or as an owner or lessor of premises used for such purpose, by reason of any statute or ordinance pertaining to the sale, gift, distribution or use of any alcoholic beverage.”
None of the remaining contentions requires discussion in view of our disposition of the coverage issue.
The judgment is affirmed.
Judge J. WARREN MADDEN concurs in the judgment.

Question: Did the court's interpretation of the substantial evidence rule support the government? For example, "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" or "more than a mere scintilla". This issue is present only when the court indicates that it is using this doctrine, rather than when the court is merely discussing the evidence to determine whether the evidence supports the position of the appellant or respondent.
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer:

Answer: D