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 civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court support the decision of an administrative law judge? 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:
SOUTHERN GROCERY STORES, Inc., v. CHILDS.
No. 8933.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 28, 1939.
M. E. Kilpatrick, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
James A. Branch and Thomas B. Branch, Jr., both of Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.
Before FOSTER, HUTCHESON, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
FOSTER, Circuit Judge.
Appellee, as trustee in bankruptcy of Paramount Dairy Company, brought this suit under the provisions of Section 60 National Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 96, to recover preferential payments made to appellant by the bankrupt. It was tried to a jury and a verdict was rendered in appellee’s favor, upon which judgment was entered. Errors are assigned to the overruling of a plea of res adjudicata and to the denial of a directed verdict.
The plea of res adjudicata is based upon a judgment of the Superior Court of De Kalb County, Georgia, dismissing on demurrer a suit brought by appellee against Southern Grocery Stores, Inc. (appellant), Southern Dairy Corporation, and four individuals, charging them, in effect, with fraudulent conversion of the assets of the bankrupt. That suit was brought under the law of Georgia and sounded in tort. Recovery of preferences was not an issue in that suit and the question was not decided. The suit at bar is based upon a right given the trustee by a Federal statute. Fraud is not an ingredient. While the parties are the same, it is evident the cause of action is different. The plea of res adjudicata was properly overruled. Troxell v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co., 227 U.S. 434, 33 S.Ct. 274, 57 L.Ed. 586.
The motion for a directed verdict was on the ground that there was no proof showing the bankrupt was insolvent at the times the preferences were received. It is further contended it was not shown appellant had reasonable cause to know the bankrupt was insolvent or that it was being granted preferences. The amount of the verdict is not disputed. On this point it is sufficient to say we find substantial evidence in the record tending to support the verdict.
No prejudicial error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Question: Did the court support the decision of an administrative law judge?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3