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 court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" 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".

Opinion:
Ralph D. LAMBERT and Margot Lambert, Ernest J. Henley and Barbara M. Henley, Martha Henley, Petitioners, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
Nos. 79-81, Dockets 28983-28985.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 20, 1964.
Decided Oct. 30, 1964.
Raymond F. Garrity, Washington, D. C. (Garrity, Ferguson & Phillipps, Carl A. Phillipps, Washington, D. C., on brief), for petitioners.
Edward B. Greensfelder, Jr., St. Louis, Mo. (Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson and David O. Walter, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C.), for respondent.
Edward Pesin, Newark, N. J., for S. Arthur Stern, filed a brief as amicus curiae.
Before FRIENDLY, KAUFMAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We affirm the judgment of the Tax Court on the opinion of Judge Fay. Although the Commissioner might well have taken a more lenient view on the facts here presented, it is plain that the petitioners did not comply with requirements on which the Commissioner was entitled to insist.

Question: Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3