What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. The issue is: "Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile, (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?" 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". If the court answered the question in the affirmative, but the error articulated by the court was judged to be harmless, answer "Yes, but error was harmless".

Opinion:
Mary B. SCHENK, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert F. Schenk, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. William E. LOEHR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 17387, 17388.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
May 19, 1967.
William G. Reamon, Grand Rapids, Mich., Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon, Williams & Dilley, by Michael 0. Barron, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for appellants.
Douglas W. Hillman, Grand Rapids, Mich., Hillman, Baxter & Hammond, by .Robert N. Hammond, Grand Rapids, Mich., on brief, for appellee.
Before O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judge, and WILBUR K. MILLER and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judges.
Of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
These appeals are from summary judgments granted to Packaging Corporation of America in actions brought against it and others to recover damages for the death of Robert F. Schenk and injuries to William E. Loehr, which resulted from an automobile accident in Michigan. The car in which they were riding came in contact with a tractor-truck loaded with pulpwood, or with some portion 0f the load, and the death and injuries followed.
The Packaging Corporation’s motion for summary judgment was based on the fact that the pulpwood was being delivered to one of its plants by an independent contractor over whom it had no sort of control, nor had it exercised or attempted to exercise control over him. The District Court granted the motions and directed the entry of final judgments in favor of Packaging Corporation, as he expressly determined under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., that in these multiple party actions there was no just reason for delay. Thus the appeals are properly before us even though the claims against the other defendants have not been adjudicated.
We affirm the judgments of the District Court on the opinion of District Judge Noel P. Fox in Schenk, Admr. v. Packaging Corporation of America (our number 17,387), which is reported in 267 F.Supp. 439 (1966).
Affirmed.

Question: Did the court rule that some evidence, other than a confession made by the defendant or illegal search and seizure, was inadmissibile (or did ruling on appropriateness of evidentary hearing benefit the defendant)?

Choices:
No
Yes
Yes, but error was harmless
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 4