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:
HECHT CO., Inc., v. HARRISON.
No. 8315.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued April 12, 1943.
Decided July 9, 1943.
Mr. Leroy S. Bendheim, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Lawrence Koenigsberger and Lewis Jacobs, both of Washington, D. C, were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. Ralph A. Cusick, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before VINSON, EDGERTON, and ARNOLD, Associate Justices.
EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment for the plaintiff in a personal injury suit. A difference in floor level between two parts of appellant’s store was accommodated by a ramp about 22 inches wide which extended lengthwise through an aisle. The height of the ramp was variously stated as 1% and 2yz inches. It was covered with linoleum about 3/16 of an inch thick. On its lower side the ramp sloped downward about % inch in 5 inches. At the lower edge of the ramp the linoleum was covered by a thin strip of brass. This strip was not level but sloped downward toward the uncovered floor. The drop at the edge was about 3/16 of an inch. No sign or other warning called attention to the ramp or its edge. Appellee, a customer in the store, had occasion to walk parallel with this edge, stepped on it, turned his ankle, lost his balance and was injured. Thousands of customers walked through the aisle, before and after the accident, without injury. About a year later the place was converted into a carpenter shop and ceased to be open to the public.
Storekeepers must use reasonable care to make their floors safe for customers. Whatever may be said of an unusually low step, or a step in an unusual position, or an outside ramp which connects an outer door with a sidewalk, we think the jury were justified in finding that the ramp here involved was not reasonably safe.
The court allowed a view of the premises. Appellant complains of this on the ground that conditions had changed. The linoleum had become worn and dust had accumulated since the accident, but it does not appear that any change material to the risk had occurred. In fact appellant’s counsel told the jury that the floor was just as it had been at the time of the accident. Appellant also complains of measurements and discussions which took place during the view. If there was any error in the conduct of the view it was not prejudicial, since nothing material occurred which was not also covered by testimony in open court
Affirmed.
Associate Justice VINSON took part in the consideration of this case and agreed in the result, but resigned before the opinion was written.
Hellyer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 62 App.D.C. 318, 67 F.2d 584; Young Men’s Shop v. Odend’hal, 73 App.D.C. 354, 121 F.2d 857.
Bell v. Central Nat’l Bank, 28 App.D.C. 580.
Dickson v. Emporium Mercantile Co., Inc., 193 Minn. 629, 259 N.W. 375; Haddon v. Snellenburg, 293 Pa. 333, 143 A. 8.
Hogan v. Metropolitan Bldg. Co., 120 Wash. 82, 206 P. 959; Mullen v. Sensenbrenner Mercantile Co., Mo.Sup., 260 S.W. 982, 33 A.L.R. 176.
Cf. Lunny v. Pepe, 116 Conn. 684, 165 A. 552.
Cf. City of Emporia v. Juengling, 78 Kan. 595, 96 P. 850, 19 L.R.A.,N.S., 223.

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