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:
CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Henry MANN and Joyce Mann, his wife, Appellees.
No. 16895.
United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.
June 27, 1962.
Robert S. Lindsey, Little Rock, Ark., for appellant. Wright, Lindsey, Jennings, Lester & Shults, were with him on the brief.
Cooper Jacoway, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee and filed brief.
Before VOGEL and RIDGE, Circuit Judges, and DEVITT, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
In this diversity case, where most of the facts were stipulated and no substantial dispute exists in the evidence as a whole, the District Court after trial without a jury entered judgment against appellant for the face amount of a fire insurance policy, with penalties. Appellees were the named insured and First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Little Rock, Arkansas was designated as mortgagee in the standard mortgage clause of such policy. The policy was issued in the State of Arkansas, insuring property situate in that State, which was totally destroyed by fire.
At a pre-trial conference held in the court below it was agreed that the issues for decision were:
“a. Whether the policy of insurance issued by the defendant ever was a contract of insurance. •
“b. Whether there was an effective cancellation of the policy before the fire.
“c. Whether the prohibition of other insurance contained in (a) policy issued to plaintiff (s) by Trinity Universal Insurance Company prevents plaintiff from recovering in this action.”
The District Court resolved each of the above issues against appellant’s contention. In so doing it incorporated findings of fact and conclusions of law in a detailed and carefully considered opinion reported in 196 F.Supp. 604.
From our examination of the record on appeal, we are satisfied that the District Court’s findings of fact and inferences drawn therefrom are supported by substantial evidence, and its conclusions of law are correct and permissible under the laws of the State of Arkansas. If there can be any doubt as to the law of that State, as appellant here claims, we will not substitute our opinion thereon for that of the District Court in a diversity action, where it is not clearly demonstrated that a Federal District Judge has misapplied the local law of his State. Homolla v. Gluck, 248 F.2d 731 (8 Cir. 1957).
The District Court in its opinion supra, fairly stated all the facts. The issues presented thereby are such as to be of interest only to the parties here involved. Any exposition of the facts and issues in this opinion could only paraphrase those as stated by Judge Henley in his opinion supra. By their briefs the parties demonstrate a full understanding of those issues. Hence this case in principle differs in no controlling respect from other diversity cases where the facts giving rise to the dispute are particularly unique and such as would rarely arise again, but notwithstanding, are wholly governed by the local law of a State.
The issues raised by this appeal are analogous to those presented to the District Court. As those matters are presented to us we are, in effect, asked to put ourselves in the place of the District Judge and make independent inferences from the evidence and apply conclusions of law thereto such as appellant deems the local law of Arkansas. This we cannot do. Palmer v. Aeolian Co., 46 F.2d 746 (8 Cir.1931), cert. den. 283 U.S. 851, 51 S.Ct. 560, 75 L.Ed. 1458. We can only review judgments of the District Courts for errors of law and abuse of discretion committed in the concoction of their judgments. The burden to demonstrate error as to those matters is on appellant. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Black Hills et al. v. Hubbard, 203 F.2d 859 (8 Cir.1953). That burden is a peculiarly heavy one in a diversity case controlled by state law. Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Coleman, 186 F.2d 40 (8 Cir.1950). “If a federal district judge has reached a permissible conclusion upon a question of local law, we will not reverse, even though we may think the law should be otherwise.” National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Kalis, 191 F.2d 739, 741 (8 Cir.1951), cert. den. 342 U.S. 933, 72 S.Ct. 377, 96 L.Ed. 695.
Nothing urged upon us by appellant demonstrates that the experienced District Judge who tried the case at bar either misconceived or misapplied the law of Arkansas to the issues presented to him. As to issues not so presented, they are not subject to review by us. New York Life Insurance Co. v. Calhoun, 8 Cir., 114 F.2d 526, cert. den. 311 U.S. 701, 61 S.Ct. 141, 85 L.Ed. 455; Trapp v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 8 Cir., 70 F.2d 976, aff. 8 Cir., 72 F.2d 374, cert. den. 293 U.S. 596, 55 S.Ct. 112, 79 L.Ed. 690.
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: 1