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:
John T. PHILLIPS, Jr., Corrado Frank Tumminello, Charles Phillip Freitag, and Carroll Charles Myers, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 76-1554.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 11, 1977.
Decided April 6, 1977.
Herbert A. Bergson, James H. Kelley, Robert A. Burka, Bergson, Borkland, Margolis & Adler, Washington, D.C., and Morton A. Sacks, Cable, McDaniel, Bowie & Bond, Baltimore, Md., for defendant-appellant.
Robert G. Levy, Peter H. Gunst, Allan P. Hillman, Frank, Bernstein, Conaway & Goldman, Baltimore, Md., for all plaintiffsappellees.
J. Hardin Marion, William C. Sammons, Tydings & Rosenberg, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff-appellee Tumminello.
Before RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, WIDENER, Circuit Judge, and WYZANSKI, Senior District Judge.
Sitting by designation.
WYZANSKI, Senior District Judge.
Defendant appeals, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292(a), from the District Court’s permanent injunction, under § 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 26, directing defendant Crown Central Petroleum Corporation (Crown), which is a wholesaler of gasoline and an operator of retail gasoline service stations, to execute new three-year lease-and-dealer agreements with each of the four plaintiffs, John T. Phillips, Jr., Corrado Frank Tumminello, Charles Phillip Freitag, and Carroll Charles Myers, each being a Baltimore retail gasoline dealer. They complained, inter alia, and the District Court found, that defendant Crown had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by agreeing with its competitors to fix retail gasoline prices.
While many issues are presented on this appeal, only a brief recital of the facts is necessary because, in our view, at this stage of the case, one issue is dispositive and requires a remand of the case to the District Court.
The presently significant issue is whether, it having been shown, for the first time, after the District Court had made its findings, had reached its conclusions, and had entered its permanent injunction, that, according to his own admission, one of the plaintiffs, Tumminello, had committed perjury, both in pre-trial depositions and at the trial, with respect to issues central to the litigation, and defendant, on that showing, having moved under Federal Civil Procedure Rules 52(b) and 60(b) that the District Court dismiss all claims of all plaintiffs or, in the alternative, grant a new trial or afford other relief pursuant to F.R.C.P. 59 (b) and 60(b), the District Court committed reversible error when the Court, without inquiring into the extent of the perjury, held that it would “continue to credit . Tumminello’s testimony”, and it, therefore, denied defendant Crown’s motion in all respects except to strike one finding, and also refused to dissolve or stay the injunction.
We are mindful of our duty as an appellate court to accord wide latitude to findings of the trial court with respect to credibility of witnesses, and to facts and to inferences therefrom. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine, 395 U.S. 100, 123, 89 S.Ct. 1562, 23 L.Ed.2d 129 (1969), McCrary v. Runyon, 515 F.2d 1082,1086 (4th Cir., 1975) Only when a finding of fact is “clearly erroneous” are we to set it aside. F.R.C.P. 52(a) U. S. v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948).
Moreover, we are concerned to avoid in our statement of the facts, as they appear at this juncture, anything which might appear to govern findings of fact which the District Judge may be called upon to make at later stages of this case.
In the light of those cautions, we now briefly summarize the dominant facts as disclosed in the present record.
Defendant Crown is an independent gasoline marketer. About 1965, having decided to convert, experimentally, to “multi-pump” marketing, it sold gasoline and motor oil at discount prices in its own attractive retail outlets. In 1969 and 1970 each of plaintiffs separately became a Crown dealer, that is, a lessee of a Crown gasoline station.
In 1972 plaintiff Phillips, and in 1973 plaintiff Tumminello, separately sought renewals of the one-year leases each had previously had from Crown as lessor of a gas station. Crown gave each only a six-month probationary lease.
In April 1973 each filed in the District Court a complaint charging defendant Crown with (1) agreeing with competing petroleum marketers to fix wholesale and retail gasoline prices (“horizontal price fixing”), (2) setting plaintiffs retail gasoline and oil prices (“vertical price fixing”), (3) unlawfully requiring plaintiff to purchase Crown motor oils exclusively, and (4) unlawfully restricting plaintiff’s sales of other products, such as “antifreeze.” A month later plaintiff Freitag and plaintiff Myers filed in the same court parallel complaints against Crown.
The District Judge consolidated the cases for trial, and heard them without a jury. He found that Crown had violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by (1) agreeing with other independent marketers, but not major company competitors, to fix the retail, but not the wholesale, price of gasoline, (2) illegally setting plaintiffs’ retail prices, and (3) requiring plaintiffs to buy their motor oil from Crown. The judge further ruled that Crown had injured each plaintiff and that each was entitled to an injunction at once and to damages to be determined subsequently.
December 15, 1975 the District Court ordered Crown to enter into a new three-year lease with each plaintiff, and enjoined Crown from refusing, for any retaliatory reason, to renew the lease at the end of the first three-year term.
During subsequent taking of depositions relevant to damages, on December 11, 1975, plaintiff Tumminello was being examined concerning inconsistencies in records relating to vertical price pressure which allegedly occurred on April 24, 1971 and which were the sole basis for the District Court’s finding of Fact No. 46 which read as follows:
46. In April 1971, plaintiff Tumminello decided to independently lower his retail gasoline prices, without a corresponding reduction in Crown’s wholesale price, in order to better compete with a nearby competing Esso service station. This Esso service station had been posting retail gasoline prices lower than those posted by Tumminello. Shortly after Tumminello altered his prices, a Crown sales representative visited his station and told him that he could not lower his prices without Crown’s approval. After such sales representative left his station, Tumminello received a telephone call from District Manager Conway who instructed him to raise his retail gasoline prices to their previous level immediately or his lease would be cancelled on five days’ notice. For fear of losing his station, Tumminello increased his prices to their prior level at 3:00 P. M. that day. The competing Esso service station continued to post retail gasoline prices lower than those posted by Tumminello until at least September 1971, causing a substantial loss of gasoline sales at his station.
Seven days later, December 18, 1975 plaintiffs’ own counsel (as is stated at p. 44 of their brief in this Court) “advised the [District] Court that Tumminello had testified falsely at the trial as to this incident, and, in that connection, had fabricated a service station shift sheet in support of that testimony. Crown thereupon filed post-trial motions seeking relief pursuant to Rules 52(b), 59(a) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asking the Court, among other things, to dismiss the claims of all plaintiffs. On January 12, 1976 Tumminello’s personal counsel, J. Hardin Marion, wrote the Court and stated that Tumminello was ‘prepared, and anxious, to appear before the Court and to answer fully any and all questions from the Court and counsel relative to his testimony in this case, including the incident which gave rise to Finding of Fact No. 46.’ ”
The record makes it indisputable that defendant sought that it have an opportunity for a hearing in which Tumminello would be examined ore tenus, that Crown be permitted to offer additional testimony which had become relevant in view of the perjury of Tumminello, and that, thereafter, the District Judge should re-appraise the case and then determine the appropriate findings and conclusions.
Instead, the District Judge, after considering memoranda and oral argument addressed to him, by an oral opinion struck finding 46 but refused to grant the requested hearing or to prepare new findings. His reason was that “the false testimony and the false exhibit of plaintiff Tumminello were no more than cumulative and were not necessary to the Court’s ultimate decision on the various issues.” Indeed the judge added that “this Court will continue to credit . . . Tumminello’s testimony as well as other exhibits offered by him.”
It is quite possible that when all is told it will appear that the District Judge has correctly estimated the situation.
But that is not a sufficient reason for not conducting a plenary hearing. The District Judge and we know that on a vital matter Tumminello, according to his own and the other plaintiffs’ counsel, has committed perjury. Just how pervasive was that perjury, neither the judges nor the parties other than Tumminello can know. It is possible that large parts of the intricate web of findings may be affected. It is possible that the perjury was limited, and that there remains a solid structure for the injunction. One must hear before one decides. Audi alteram partem is a fundamental rule of procedural fairness.
Hence we conclude that the District Court should have granted defendant’s motion to vacate or stay the injunction and to conduct a hearing as prayed.
In insisting on that rule, we are, of course, conscious that the record reveals that District Judge Harvey conducted with skill and patience a complicated case, that he was thorough, careful, and helpful to an appellate court in his initial findings of fact and conclusions of law, that already he has a substantial basis, apart from Tumminello’s testimony, to support his injunction, that he may feel that even if Tumminello is a proven perjurer other plaintiffs will not be affected by such proof, and that there is no basis for here invoking the always treacherous maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
Nonetheless, we cannot be sure that the confidence that the District Judge has in what would be shown by a full hearing and examination thereafter of the findings, conclusions, and injunction will be vindicated. We have, as we are sure the District Judge will have, an open mind to receive whatever may be shown in the light of what is now admitted to have been perjury on a most important aspect of the case.
The injunction is vacated without prejudice, and the case is returned to the District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

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