What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" 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". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless".

Opinion:
The SUSQUEHANNA CORPORATION, (Appellant in No. 15791) v. GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, D. Emmert Brumbaugh, Harry T. Graham, John E. Hartshorn, Arthur F. Kroeger, David Remer and William B. Walker. General Refractories Company, John E. Hartshorn, and Harry T. Graham, (Appellants in No. 15787).
Nos. 15787, 15791.
United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.
Argued Feb. 18, 1966.
Decided March 2, 1966, but Jurisdiction retained.
Sidney L. Wickenhaver, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants in No. 15,787 (General Refractories Co., John E. Hartshorn and Harry T. Graham) and appellee in No. 15,791 (Thomas N. O’Neill, Arthur H. Moss, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief).
H. Francis DeLone, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant in No. 15,791 (Susquehanna Corp.) and appellees in No. 15,787.
Before McLAUGHLIN, HASTIE and FREEDMAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
We hold that the basic position of recognizing and accepting jurisdiction in this matter by the District Court is sound and that said jurisdiction has been properly exercised. As to the scope of the relief to plaintiff, The Susquehanna Corporation, we agree that it is entitled at this time to the proxy statements and to copies of the minutes of the directors meetings of the General Refractories Company at which the transaction here involved was considered. We will retain plaintiff’s application for certain further specific information in abeyance until after the proxy statements have been made available to plaintiff. In the event the said statements be deemed insufficient by plaintiff it may make application to this Court on notice to the defense for enlargement of the relief allowed. There should be no difficulty in working out a reasonable timetable by and between the parties. If, however, the necessity should arise, either party on notice may bring this element of the case before this Court.
The order of the District Court of February 11, 1966 is affirmed with respect to Paragraphs 1 and 2. Decision is reserved as to Paragraph 3 of said order.
Judge Hastie believes that the plaintiff is not entitled to the preliminary proxy material which the defendant General Refractories Company has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and that its right, if any, to other information should be determined by the District Court after the defendant’s proxy material shall have been published and in the light of that publication. Accordingly, Judge Hastie agrees that the plaintiff is not now entitled to the requested additional material and information, but otherwise he dissents from the present disposition of this appeal.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 4