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:
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Lawrence Milton BALDWIN, Paul W. Harris, Administrator of the Estate of Virginia M. Harris, Anna Lovelace Holland, Administratrix of the Estate of Virgil Holland, and Louise Irwin Sparks, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl Sparks, and Earl Holland, a Minor, Appellees.
No. 10199.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 11, 1966.
Decided March 7, 1966.
Clarence N. Gilbert, Asheville, N. C., for appellant.
Harry L. Cline, Gaffney, S. C., for ap-pellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judge, and HUTCHESON, District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is a declaratory judgment proceeding instituted by Maryland Casualty Company under Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 to determine coverage under a garage liability policy issued by Maryland Casualty to Lawrence Milton Baldwin on April 1, 1963. A car admittedly at one time owned by Mr. Baldwin was involved in a serious accident October 27, 1963. There are no issues of law involved in this case, only factual questions as to the ownership and possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident. The district judge found that Baldwin was the owner of the automobile, that possession had not been transferred under an agreement of sale and that the use at the time of the accident was with the permission of Baldwin. The testimony as to underlying facts and circumstances of the ownership and possession of this automobile was confused and contradictory. Credibility is for the trial court, which sat without a jury. The burden was upon the plaintiff. We cannot say that the determination of the district judge is clearly erroneous.
The decision of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.

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: 3