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:
SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. MONTGOMERY.
No. 6058.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 1931.
R. H. Scrivner, of Birmingham, Ala., Ely B. Mitchell, of Corinth, Miss., and J. T. Stokely, of Birmingham, Ala. (T. A. Clark, of Iuka, Miss., on the brief), for appellant.
Jas. A. Cunningham, of Booneville, Miss. (Floyd W. Cunningham, of Booneville, Miss., on the brief), for appellee.
Before FOSTER, Circuit Judge, and GRUBB and DAWKINS, District Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for $25,000, damages for personal injuries caused by his automobile being run into and himself injured ou a grade crossing of appellant’s railroad. Briefly stated, the declaration alleges that plaintiff stopped his car and killed his engine on a public road before crossing the track; that a freight train was being switched on the track and his view was obscured by other cars standing on the switch tracks; that the way across the tracks was open; that ho was signaled to by the conductor of the freight train to come •across; that ho did so and the train was negligently backed up by the engineer, causing the accident. It was alleged that the engineer was negligent in reversing his engine and backing his train upon the crossing, and that the conductor was negligent because he failed to make any distress signal to the engineer or to take any precaution to prevent the accident. It was not alleged that the action of the conductor in signaling the plaintiff to cross the track was negligent. In the course of his instructions to the jury the court gave the following charge to.which error is assigned: “Now, gentlemen, if yon believe from a preponderance of the evidence in this ease that the plaintiff, Dr. Montgomery, while in a safe place, was given an invitation by an employee of the railroad company present on this occasion, to proceed to cross the railroad track, and that Dr. Montgomery, in pursuance to this invitation extended to him to cross the railroad track, was injured because of his invitation, it would be your duty to find a verdict for plaintiff.”
This instruction was several times repeated in substantially the same language and was clearly the main issue upon which the case was submitted to the jury. From the facts shown, the mere invitation to cross the track could not possibly have been negligence without the concurring negligence of the engineer in backing up his train. Nowhere in the charge of the court was this theory of the case submitted to the jury, nor was the theory of appellant’s defense that the plaintiff mistook a signal to the engineer to back up for a signal to cross the track, although charges to that effect were request ed. Even had the invitation to cross amounted to negligence, it is well settled that in federal courts a plaintiff can recover only on the allegations of his pleadings and cannot recover on some other act incidentally appearing in the proof. Hines v. Jasko (C. C. A.) 266 F. 336; Union Pac. v. Garner (C. C. A.) 24 F. (2d) 53; Wash. Railroad v. Bradley, 77 U. S. (10 Wall.) 299, 19 L. Ed. 894, It follows that the instruction was misleading and erroneous.
Appellant complains that the verdict is so excessive as to evince passion and prejudice on the part of the jury. While this criticism would seem to be somewhat justified, this was a matter to be considered by the trial court and to be controlled by requiring a remittitur or by awarding a new trial. N. Pac. R. Co. v. Herbert, 116 U. S. 642, 6 S. Ct. 590, 29 L. Ed. 755; Gila Valley Ry. Co. v. Hall, 232 U. S. 94, 34 S. Ct. 229, 58 L. Ed. 521. We have no jurisdiction to correct a verdict because it is excessive.
Other errors assigned are not without merit, hut, as the erroneous charge requires a reversal and they may not recur, we refrain from discussing them.
Reversed.

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