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:
Gladys HILDRETH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNION NEWS COMPANY, a New York Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15098.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
April 12, 1963.
Dee Edwards, Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
Lester S. Moll, Detroit, Mich. (M«ll, Desenberg, Purdy, Glover & Bayer, Detroit, Mich., on brief), for appellee.
Before CECIL, Chief Judge, and MILLER and O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
SHACKELFORD MILLER, Jr., Circuit Judge.
The facts in this case are fully stated in Union News Company v. Hildreth, 295 F.2d 658, C.A.6th. For our present purposes the following summary is considered sufficient.
The plaintiff was one of a crew of eleven or twelve persons employed by the defendant in its operation of a soda fountain and lunch counter at the Michigan Central Railroad terminal at Detroit. She was a member of the Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, AFL, Detroit Local Joint Executive Board, hereinafter referred to as the Union, which was the designated bargaining representative of defendant’s employees. During the period of time here involved there was a collective bargaining agreement between the defendant and the Union, which contained the provision, “No regular employe covered by this Agreement shall be discharged except for just cause.”
Defendant became concerned about its cost experience and poor operating results at the counter where plaintiff worked, which apparently resulted from mishandling of merchandise and money by unidentified employees. It discussed its problem with the Union and opened its books to the business agents of the Union, who made their own examination and analysis of defendant’s continuing problem, and concluded that some action had to be taken to remedy the situation. After discussion between the defendant and the Union, a course of action was agreed to between them which was put into effect and ultimately lead to the permanent replacement of the plaintiff as an employee with the approval of the Union.
Plaintiff met with Union officers at the various levels of authority and with the Union’s grievance committee in an effort to get the Union to take action against the defendant in her behalf. She was told that the Union was convinced that her discharge was for just cause. No grievance was ever presented by the Union on plaintiff’s behalf.
Plaintiff thereafter filed her individual complaint in this action f alleging that she was discharged by the defendant without just cause in violation of the terms and conditions of the bargaining agreement between the defendant and the Union and seeking $30,000.00 in damages plus lost wages to the date of trial. A first trial of the case resulted in a verdict and judgment of no cause of action. A new trial was ordered, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in plaintiff’s favor for $5,000.00. On appeal to this Court the judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered. Union News Company v. Hildreth, supra, 295 F.2d 658, C.A.6th.
In reaching that conclusion we were of the opinion that under Section 159(a), Title 29, United States Code, the Union was the exclusive representative of all of the employees in the unit involved for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that such statutory power, in combination with the terms of the bargaining contract, authorized the Union and the defendant to mutually conclude, as a part of the bargaining process, that the circumstances shown by the evidence provided just cause for the layoff and discharge of the plaintiff and other of defendant’s employees, and that plaintiff’s discharge was not a breach of contract by the defendant. We also pointed out that there was no evidence from which a jury could find that in agreeing to lay off and then discharge plaintiff and her co-workers in an effort to solve defendant’s problems, there was any fraud, bad faith or collusion on the part of, or between, the Union’s and defendant’s agents. The reasons for our conclusions were stated at length in the opinion, with the citation of supporting authorities.
On the new trial, the District Judge, relying upon the ruling and opinion of this Court, entered a directed verdict in favor of the defendant of no cause of action, which was followed by this appeal.
We find no merit in plaintiff’s contention that evidence which was introduced at the last trial in addition to that introduced at the previous trial was sufficient to take the case to the jury, even though the evidence introduced in the previous trial may not have been sufficient. We do not think there is any material difference in the evidence introduced at the two trials. The basic facts, upon which we concluded that as a matter of law the plaintiff had no cause of action, are not in dispute.
Plaintiff contends that in our previous ruling we gave no effect to the proviso in Section 159(a), Title 29, United States Code, to the effect that any individual employee shall have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer and to have such grievances adjusted without the intervention of the bargaining representative. It is pointed out that any reliance which we may have placed upon Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Corp., 348 U.S. 437, 75 S.Ct. 488, 99 L.Ed. 510, in making our ruling was not justified in view of the recent decision in Smith v. Evening News Association, 371 U.S. 195, 199, 83 S.Ct. 267, 9 L.Ed.2d 246, on December 10, 1962, which held that the ruling in the Westinghouse case is no longer authoritative as a precedent.
We pass without comment so much of plaintiff’s argument which challenges the correctness of our previous ruling, with the exception of the reference to a change in the applicable law by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Smith v. Evening News Association, supra. Subject to the effect of that case, if any, our previous ruling is the law of this case and will not be reconsidered on this second appeal. Carpenter v. Durell, 90 F.2d 57, 58, C.A.6th, cert. denied, 302 U.S. 721, 58 S.Ct. 42, 82 L.Ed. 557; Louisville Trust Co. v. National Bank of Kentucky, 102 F.2d 137, 139, C.A.6th, cert. denied, 308 U.S. 564, 60 S.Ct. 76, 84 L.Ed. 474.
The change in the law resulting from the ruling in Smith v. E\rening News Association, supra, in our opinion, does not affect our previous ruling. In making our ruling, we expressly stated (295 F.2d at p. 665) that we did not rely upon authorities which have held that under such a contract as here involved, only the Union can process a grievance and if a Union refuses or neglects to do so, an aggrieved employee is without remedy against his employer. The right of an individual employee to process an alleged grievance is not the issue in this case. Rather, it is whether, under the circumstances here involved, the Union had the authority, acting in the collective interest of those whom it represented, to agree with the defendant on necessary corrective measures to be taken without such action being treated as a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. As stated above, we held such authority existed and was properly exercised.
The judgment is 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: 0