Task: songer_r_stid

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Your task is to identify the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is a respondent.

PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Court for the Northern District of New York, entered upon the verdict of the jury. The action was for personal injuries due to a collision between the defendant’s motor car and a car which the plaintiff was driving. At the conclusion of the evidence, the plaintiff did not ask for the direction of a verdict, but after the jury had brought in a verdict in favor of the defendants, moved to set it aside as against the weight of evidence. This the court denied and its order is the only question raised upon this appeal.
The' jury could have found the following facts. On a rainy night in January the plaintiff, driving his car along the highway between Utica and Herkimer in the State of New York, was brought to a stop by a stalled motor truck on his side of the road. While he was waiting for other cars to pass which were coming in the opposite direction, the defendant’s truck ran into him from behind, causing the injuries in question. The excuse of the defendant’s driver was that, although he had on his “fog lights,” they did not light up the road far enough ahead for him to see the plaintiff’s car before it was too late. He had had to pull over to the right side of the road to let a car pass, whose bright lights blinded him and when he pulled back into his side of the road, he was within a few feet of plaintiff’s car. He was then moving at not more than sixteen or eighteen miles an hour.
The plaintiff’s theory is that the law of New York makes it negligent without more to drive a motor car at a speed such that an obstruction ahead cannot be seen in time to stop. Albertson v. Ansbacher, 102 Misc. 527, 169 N.Y.S. 188. That case did not profess to lay down so absolute a rule, and we can find no evidence that it exists in New York; and indeed, the defendants’ explanation, if accepted, made a substantial variant. The denial of a motion to set aside a verdict presents a different question upon appeal from the denial of a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence; except in the most unusual circumstances it is not appealable. Crumpton v. United States, 138 U.S. 361, 363, 11 S.Ct. 355, 34 L.Ed. 958; Van Stone v. Stilwell & Bierce Mfg. Co., 142 U.S. 128, 134, 12 S.Ct. 181, 35 L.Ed. 961; Moore v. United States, 150 U.S. 57, 61, 62, 14 S.Ct. 26, 37 L.Ed. 996; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 248, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129; O’Donnell v. New York Transportation Co., 2 Cir., 187 F. 109, 110. Certainly there was nothing in this case which would justify us in upsetting the discretion of the trial judge.
Appeal dismissed.

Question: What is the state of the first listed state or local government agency that is a respondent?
年. not
数. Alabama
日. Alaska
的. Arizona
月. Arkansas
用. California
成. Colorado
名. Connecticut
时. Delaware
件. Florida
一. Georgia
请. Hawaii
中. Idaho
据. Illinois
码. Indiana
不. Iowa
新. Kansas
文. Kentucky
下. Louisiana
分. Maine
入. Maryland
人. Massachussets
功. Michigan
上. Minnesota
户. Mississippi
为. Missouri
间. Montana
号. Nebraska
取. Nevada
回. New
在. New
页. New
字. New
有. North
个. North
作. Ohio
示. Oklahoma
出. Oregon
是. Pennsylvania
失. Rhode
表. South
除. South
加. Tennessee
败. Texas
生. Utah
信. Vermont
类. Virginia
置. Washington
理. West
本. Wisconsin
息. Wyoming
行. Virgin
定. Puerto
改. District
市. Guam
期. not
以. Panama
Answer:

Answer: 年