What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in any civil law cases including civil government, civil private, and diversity cases. The issue is: "Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?" 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".

Opinion:
ACME, PALMERS & DE MOOY FOUNDRY CO. v. Harry H. WEISS, Formerly U. S. Collector of Internal Revenue.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
November 15, 1928.
No. 5033.
Fraukel, Brunenkant & Frankel, of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff in error.
A. E. Bernsteen, IJ. S. Atty., and Irene Nungesser, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Cleveland, Ohio, and F. F. Toomey, Sp. Atty., Bureau of Internal Revenue, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.
PER CURIAM.
Judgment of District Court affirmed, with costs, on authority of Law v. U. S., 266 U. S. 494, 45 S. Ct. 175, 69 L. Ed. 401, Fleischmann Co. v. U. S., 270 U. S. 349, 46 S. Ct. 284, 70 L. Ed. 624, Oyler v. Railway Co., 16 F.(2d) 455, and Frankie Bros. Co. v. Routzahn, 26 F.(2d) 1018.

Question: Did the court's ruling on an issue arising out of an alternative dispute resolution process (ADR, settlement conference, role of mediator or arbitrator, etc.) favor the appellant?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3