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:
Robert A. WARNER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEW YORK CENTRAL TRANSPORT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14445.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Oct. 27, 1961.
John W. McGraw, Saginaw, Mich., H. Monroe Stanton, Stanton, Taylor & Mc-Graw, Saginaw, Mich., on brief, for appellant.
Walter Martin, Saginaw, Mich., Martin & Martin, Saginaw, Mich., Robert S. Gilbert, Gilbert & Gilbert, Saginaw, Mich., on brief, for appellee.
Before MILLER, Chief Judge, and WEICK and O’SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This case involved a collision between an automobile in which plaintiff was riding as a passenger and a tractor-trailer outfit owned by defendant as a result of which plaintiff sustained serious personal injuries.
The vehicles were proceeding in opposite directions on West Genesee Street in Saginaw, Michigan. The tractor-trailer commenced to make a left turn into a private driveway leading to a gasoline filling station and in the path of the automobile which collided with the trailer.
The case was submitted to a jury resulting in a verdict in favor of plaintiff.
In this appeal, only two errors are asserted, namely, (1) the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence and (2) one of the jurors was guilty of misconduct in privately viewing the scene of the accident.
The applicable Michigan statute, which plaintiff claimed was violated by the driver of the tractor-trailer, provided:
“The driver of any vehicle upon a highway, before starting, stopping or turning from a direct line, shall first see that such movement can be made in safety, and shall give a signal as required in this section.” C.L. 1948, paragraph 257.648; M.S.A. § 9.2348.
The truck driver testified that when he commenced to make a turn to the left he gave proper signals and looked ahead for a distance of 1,000 feet and saw no approaching vehicles. Defendant contends that the physical facts clearly demonstrated that he was not negligent.
The driver of the automobile in which plaintiff was riding testified that he observed no signals from the tractor-trailer and did not see its headlights until he was about three car lengths or 50 feet away; that he “slammed on” his brakes and the collision occurred.
Defendant conceded that plaintiff was not negligent in any respect.
The jury could conclude from the evidence that the driver of the tractor-trailer made his left turn in the path of the approaching automobile and without seeing that such movement could be made in safety. In our opinion, the District Court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. We think the verdict is supported by substantial evidence.
While we regard the private view by the juror of the scene of the accident as improper, we do not find that defendant was in any way prejudiced thereby.
The judgment of the District Court is 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