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.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Robert HARWELL, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 7108.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.
April 11, 1963.
Ellis M. Brown, McAlester, Okl., (Preslie H. Brown, and Brown, Brown & Brown, McAlester, Okl., were with him on the brief), for appellant.
George R. Hyde, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Ramsey Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edwin Langley, U. S. Atty., and Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were with him on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRATTON, LEWIS and HILL, Circuit Judges.
BRATTON, Circuit Judge.
This case presents for determination questions arising in a condemnation proceeding. At the request of the Secretary of the Army, the United States instituted the proceeding to acquire by condemnation title to land to provide for the construction and operation of the Eufaula Dam and Reservoir, Canadian River, in Oklahoma for flood control and related purposes. Robert Harwell owned a farm consisting of one hundred and ninety acres. Sixty acres of such land, referred to in the proceeding as Tract No. B-215, was sought and acquired. It was located approximately a mile and a half from the closest property to be inundated in the reservoir and approximately four and a half miles from the nearest point of the dam site. The estimated compensation was deposited in the registry of the court, and an order was entered granting possession to the United States. By answer, Harwell sought just compensation. The cause was tried to a jury. The jury found that the fair cash market value of the tract taken, plus the damage to the acreage remaining, was $8,700.00; and judgment was entered accordingly.
The substance of the first ground of attack upon the judgment is that the land was not acquired for a public use and that the power of condemnation was exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner. By 33 U.S.C. § 591, the Secretary of the Army is vested with authority to cause proceedings to be instituted in the name of the United States for the acquisition by condemnation of any land or material “needed to enable him to maintain, operate or prosecute works for the improvement of rivers and harbors for which provision has been made by law * * In a condemnation proceeding, the court may determine whether the nature of the proposed use is public or private. But in the absence of bad faith, if the use is a public one, the necessity for the desired property or the expediency of appropriating it thereto is not open to judicial determination. It is a matter for the legislative branch of the government, and its determination may be delegated. United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464, certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 620, 55 S.Ct. 215, 79 L.Ed. 708.
The tract around which this controversy revolves was not part of the area to be inundated, and it was not immediately contiguous or adjacent to the dam site. But extended surveys and tests had disclosed that it was underlaid with a large deposit, sometimes referred to in the record as rock and sometimes as stone, suitable for use as a constituent element in the production of mass concrete aggregate needed in the construction of the dam. The acquisition of the land was desired for the purpose of enabling the private contractor who had the contract with the government to use the rock or stone thereunder for that purpose; and that was the source of the rock or stone used. The condemnation of land for such purpose was an appropriate means of effecting a public end and therefore the determination of the Secretary of the Army of “need” therefor was well within the range of power delegated by the statute, supra. Highland v. Russell Car & Snowplow Co., 279 U.S. 253, 49 S.Ct. 314, 73 L.Ed. 688; United States v. Marin, 9 Cir., 136 F.2d 388. It also lay within the range of power vested in the Secretary to determine that the power should be exercised even though the rock or stone was to be used by the contractor rather than the government itself in effecting such public end. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27. And in these circumstances there is no basis for the contention that the exercise of the power was arbitrary or capricious.
Asserted error is predicated upon the action of the court in declining to admit in evidence three official reports made by government engineers. The reports were based upon core stem tests made of the tract in question, and they were offered to show the extent and quality of the deposit of rock and stone which underlay the land. Where private property having a prevailing market value is taken for public use, the market value at the time and place of the taking is the measure of just compensation. United States v. New River Collieries Co., 262 U.S. 341, 43 S.Ct. 565, 67 L.Ed. 1014. But where property taken has no market value, it is appropriate to resort to other data for the ascertainment of its value. United States v. Miller, 317 U.S. 369, 374, 63 S.Ct. 276, 87 L.Ed. 336. The reports were not admissible for the purpose of showing the extent and quality of the rock or stone separate and apart from the land. But they were admissible for the purpose of throwing light upon the extent and quality of such rock or stone deposit as one element in aiding the jury in fixing the value of the land. National Brick Co. v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 131 F.2d 30; Cade v. United States, 4 Cir., 213 F.2d 138. In connection with the tender and exclusion of the documents, the court stated that it had looked at them; that the court did not think it could read and analyze them; that it was unfair to expect the jury to do so; and that they were excluded on that ground. The documents consisted primarily of a mass of technical data from which the jury could not reasonably be expected to obtain helpful guidance in reaching a verdict representing the' reasonable value of the land and therefore the error in excluding them was not substantial. It was harmless.
The admissibility of testimony given by an expert witness on value relating to sales of other land is challenged on the ground that the required foundation therefor was not sufficiently laid. The testimony disclosed that such other land was within a five-mile radius of the tract involved herein; that it was underlaid with rock or stone; that the sales were made within two or three years preceding the taking of the land in question herein; and that the sale prices ranged from $5.00 to $50.00 per acre. The evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie showing of comparability. And it was admissible for the purpose of showing the basis, at least in part, upon which the expert predicated the value that he placed upon the sixty-acre tract. United States v. 5139.5 Acres of Land, etc., 4 Cir., 200 F.2d 659; United States v. 18.46 Acres of Land, etc., 2 Cir., 312 F.2d 287.
One exception was taken to the instructions. Its substance was that the court erroneously instructed the jury that the sum of $330,000 as the value of the land would derive from application of the formula tonnage multiplied by a specified royalty. More specifically, the exception was that the instruction was inaccurate as to amount; and that application of the formula to the evidence would derive a larger sum. The government concedes that the instruction was inaccurate. But the amount of the verdict indicates with crystal clarity that it was not predicated upon use of such formula and therefore the inaccuracy in the instruction did not occasion any prejudice.
The court refused certain requested instructions. But the general instructions of the court fairly and adequately covered the issues in the case. And where the instructions given by the court fairly and adequately cover the material issues, it is not error to refuse requested instructions even though they are correct statements of law. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Jackson, 10 Cir., 174 F.2d 297; Loew’s, Inc. v. Cinema Amusements, Inc., 10 Cir., 210 F.2d 86, certiorari denied, 347 U.S. 976, 74 S.Ct. 787, 98 L.Ed. 1115; Jones v. Griffin, 10 Cir., 216 F.2d 885.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1