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.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. HAYNES.
No. 9972.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
May 24, 1945.
Peck, Shaffer & Williams, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellant.
Graydon, Head & Ritchey, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for appellee.
Before HICKS, HAMILTON, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
It appearing that the cause of the death of the insured under the life and accident insurance policy involved in this case is a question of medical science, and as the expert medical testimony in the record based on evidential facts is conflicting as to whether the insured’s death was caused primarily by his infirmities and, without their presence, death would not have occurred, or was caused primarily by a fall, the issue was one for the jury, and wherefore the only error assigned is the failure of the trial court to direct a verdict, the judgment is affirmed. Bridge v. Metropolitan L. Insurance Company, 142 Ohio St. 521, 53 N.E.2d 350; Painesville Utopia Theatre Company v. Lautermilch, 118 Ohio St. 167, 160 N.E. 683; United States Casualty Co. v. Thrush, 21 Ohio App. 129, 152 N.E. 796.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3