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:
The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR THE REFORM OF MARIJUANA LAWS (NORML), et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Francis M. MULLEN, et al., Defendants/Appellants.
No. 85-1883.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted July 16, 1986.
Decided Aug. 1, 1986.
R. Elaine Leitner, Keker & Brockett, San Francisco, Cal., Marshall Warren Krause, Larkspur, Cal., for plaintiffs/appellees.
Catherine A. Rivlin, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for defendants/appellants.
Before BROWNING, FLETCHER and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This case is remanded to the district court for reconsideration of the first sentence of paragraph 3 of the preliminary injunction in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in California v. Ciraolo, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986), and Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986). In addition, the district court may choose to review the specific terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 in light of those same two cases.
The district court has thirty days to make any modifications to the preliminary injunction it deems necessary. Until it does, however, the entire preliminary injunction shall remain in effect. In all other respects, we sustain the preliminary injunction under the standard of our circuit that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding that the seriousness of the questions involved and the balance of hardships required it. Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1421 (9th Cir.1984). We retain jurisdiction to review any appeals from the modification of the preliminary injunction.

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: 0