What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether the petitioning party (i.e., the plaintiff or the appellant) emerged victorious. The victory the Supreme Court provided the petitioning party may not have been total and complete (e.g., by vacating and remanding the matter rather than an unequivocal reversal), but the disposition is nonetheless a favorable one. Consider that the petitioning party lost if the Supreme Court affirmed or dismissed the case, or denied the petition. Consider that the petitioning party won in part or in full if the Supreme Court reversed, reversed and remanded, vacated and remanded, affirmed and reversed in part, affirmed and reversed in part and remanded, or vacated the case.

Opinion:
MOORE et al. v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.
No. 444.
Argued October 13, 1970
Decided April 20, 1971
Whiteford S. Blakeney argued the cause for appellants. With him on the brief was William H. Booe.
William J. Waggoner argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief was Benjamin S. Horack.
Solicitor General Grisioold and Assistant Attorney General Leonard filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
Appellants seek review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina declaring a portion of the North Carolina anti-busing statute unconstitutional, and enjoining its enforcement. It is a companion case to No. 498, North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, ante, p. 43. We postponed decision on the question of jurisdiction, 400 U. S. 803 (1970), and after hearing on the merits we now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
At the hearing both parties argued to the three-judge court that the anti-busing law was constitutional and urged that the order of the District Court adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. We are thus confronted with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional. There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. Ill of the Constitution. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346 (1911). Additionally, since neither party sought an injunction to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, 28 U. S. C. § 2281, this is not an appeal from “any civil action, suit or proceeding required ... to be heard ... by a district court of three judges,” 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and hence no direct appeal to this Court is available.
Dismissed.

Question: Consider that the petitioning party lost if the Supreme Court affirmed or dismissed the case, or denied the petition. Consider that the petitioning party won in part or in full if the Supreme Court reversed, reversed and remanded, vacated and remanded, affirmed and reversed in part, affirmed and reversed in part and remanded, or vacated the case. Did the petitioning win the case?

Choices:
Yes
No

Answer: 1