Task: songer_realresp

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.
Your task is to determine whether or not the formally listed respondents in the case are the "real parties." That is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake? (e.g., in some appeals of adverse habeas corpus petition decisions, the respondent is listed as the judge who denied the petition, but the real parties are the prisoner and the warden of the prison) (another example would be "Jones v A 1990 Rolls Royce" where Jones is a drug agent trying to seize a car which was transporting drugs - the real party would be the owner of the car). For cases in which an independent regulatory agency is the listed respondent, the following rule was adopted: If the agency initiated the action to enforce a federal rule or the agency was sued by a litigant contesting an agency action, then the agency was coded as a real party. However, if the agency initially only acted as a forum to settle a dispute between two other litigants, and the agency is only listed as a party because its ruling in that dispute is at issue, then the agency is considered not to be a real party. For example, if a union files an unfair labor practices charge against a corporation, the NLRB hears the dispute and rules for the union, and then the NLRB petitions the court of appeals for enforcement of its ruling in an appeal entitled "NLRB v Widget Manufacturing, INC." the NLRB would be coded as not a real party. Note that under these definitions, trustees are usually "real parties" and parents suing on behalf of their children and a spouse suing on behalf of their injured or dead spouse are also "real parties."

EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
The principal question is whether the grant to appellants -and acceptance by them, in a deed of a dwelling house, of “a right of way for a foot path * * * 2 feet in width,” prevented them from acquiring by alleged necessity the right of way 10 feet in width that they claim in this suit. The deed provided that the right of way granted should “be used only, if, and so long as the highway .called Peabody Street shall be closed, discontinued, abandoned or cut off from communication from Brightwood Avenue.” Tuckerman Street has since been opened in about the location formerly contemplated for Peabody Street, except that appellants’ lot is separated from Tuckerman Street by a narrow gore, varying in width from zero to 2.52 feet, that belongs to persons who are not parties to this suit.
Appellants “having accepted the conveyance of this lot, with a restricted right of way, [are] barred from claiming a larger way as a necessity.” Haskell v. Wright, 23 N.J.Eq. 389, 396. Cf. Tiffany, Real Property, 3d Ed., § 793, pp. 290, 291. Whether probable intentions of grantors and grantees, or prevention of hardship, be the reason for “ways of necessity,” the reason fails here. Appellants and their grantors did not leave their intentions in doubt. There is no claim that they inadvertently described, in their deed, a narrower way than they intended to describe.- Though necessity has not diminished, as the parties to the deed apparently thought it would, neither has it increased. It does not appear that the 10-foot way appellants now demand, to which no grantor has agreed and for which no grantee has paid,- would inflict less hardship on appellees than appellants now suffer from lack of it. The demanded way would be some 217 feet long. It- would be a most serious encroachment on appellees’ lot. On the other hand appellants, for all that appears in their complaint, may be able to acquire on reasonable terms a right of way across the narrow and practically worthless gore that separates them from Tuckerman Street. They have sometimes rented this gore, or a way over it, for $12 a year.
Appellants’ complaint makes some attempt to claim that they acquired a 10-foot way by prescription; but it alleges use of a winding 2-foot way rather than a 10-foot way, and does not allege that even this use was adverse. Umhau v. Bazzuro, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 394, 133 F.2d 356.
The District Court was therefore right in granting appellees’ motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed.

Question: Are the formally listed respondents in the case the "real parties", that is, are they the parties whose real interests are most directly at stake?
A. both 1st and 2nd listed respondents are real parties (or only one respondent, and that respondent is a real party)
B. the 1st respondent is not a real party
C. the 2nd respondent is not a real party
D. neither the 1st nor the 2nd respondents are real parties
E. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: A