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:
Donna MACK, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CAPE ELIZABETH SCHOOL BOARD et al., Defendants, Appellees.
No. 76-1503.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Argued March 4, 1977.
Decided April 25, 1977.
Perry H. Clark, Westbrook, Maine, with whom Ray R. Pallas, Westbrook, Maine, was on brief, for plaintiff, appellant.
Merton G. Henry, Portland, Maine, with whom Nicholas S. Nadzo, Washington, D. C., and Jensen Baird Gardner Donovan & Henry, Portland, Maine, were on brief, for defendants, appellees.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, ALDRICH and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.
ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff Donna Mack, a probationary school teacher in her third year at the Cape Elizabeth, Maine, schools, applied in the middle of the year for maternity leave, and indicated that she wished to stay out during the year succeeding. The school superintendent responded with a letter of acquiescence, adding that she should notify him before February 1 of the next year, “if you wish to return to teaching.” When, in January of the following year, plaintiff gave such notification, defendant members of the school board voted not to renew her contract. Plaintiff brought suit in two counts, alleging that the school board’s refusal to supply a statement of reasons, and a hearing, deprived her of procedural due process, and that the decision not to renew was based on her pregnancy or other sex discrimination of some sort in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Defendants filed, essentially, a general denial and a motion for summary judgment accompanied by affidavits. After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment as to both counts.
We affirm that grant of summary judgment against plaintiff’s procedural due process claim. On no permissible interpretation of the contractual situation, the surrounding circumstances, or the Maine statutes, can we find that plaintiff had any “legitimate claim of entitlement” to renewal of her contract within the meaning of Board of Regents v. Roth, 1972, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 and Perry v. Sindermann, 1972, 408 U.S. 593, 92 S.Ct. 2694, 33 L.Ed.2d 570. Plaintiff does not seriously dispute that under Maine law, as a nontenured teacher, she had no right to continued employment, but could be rehired only upon nomination by the superintendent and approval by the school board. However, plaintiff asserts that the statement in the superintendent’s letter that she should give notice within a certain time if she wished to return to teaching, created an enforceable expectation of continued employment. In light of the propensity of many persons to over-construe statements in their favor, it might have been better for the superintendent to have reminded plaintiff that there was no assurance that her wish would be granted, but we cannot read his statement as making any promise, or waiving the ordinary procedures for reappointment of probationary teachers, a matter which the superintendent would lack authority to do. The maternity leave put plaintiff in the same position concerning her hope for renewal for the 1975-76 year as she would have been in concerning the 1974-75 year had she not taken leave — a nontenured teacher with no property right in continued employment.
We cannot agree, however, with the district court’s grant of summary judgment against plaintiff’s Title VII claim. The summary judgment rule, F.R.Civ.P. 56, can be a valuable tool for saving judicial time. However, by use in inappropriate situations, or misuse, it can also waste time. In view of the possible terminal result, it is essential that i’s be dotted and t’s crossed. This case fell short.
A party moving for summary judgment assumes the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of fact on every relevant issue raised by the pleadings. This is so even though, as a defendant, he would have no burden if the case were to go to trial. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 1970, 398 U.S. 144, 159-61, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142; Ramsay v. Cooper, 1 Cir., 1977, 553 F.2d 237, n. 8. While a case seeking restoration of municipal employment may well be one calling for expeditious procedure on the plaintiff’s part, cf. Zavala Santiago v. Gonzalez Rivera, 1 Cir., 1977, 553 F.2d 710, so far as summary judgment is concerned defendants could not, by filing incomplete affidavits, impose a burden on plaintiff. The court’s observation that there was nothing indicating that plaintiff’s non-renewal was the result of Tile VII discrimination was beside the mark.
Defendants’ affidavits adequately demonstrated that financial strictures required the cutting down of the teaching staff. However, this was not the real issue. The issue was why plaintiff in particular was selected out, a matter to which the affidavits failed to address themselves. It may be that the court was mislead by plaintiff’s seeming inability, at the hearing, to express her charges of discrimination in particularized terms, and was led to believe that she would not ultimately recover, but even an andabata holds the field until someone comes forward to defeat him.
The judgment for defendants on Count One is vacated and the cause remanded. At the same time, we remind the parties that the ultimate burden will be on the plaintiff to show, if she is to recover, not merely that impermissible factors entered into the decision not to renew her contract, but that they were determinative; viz., that but for them she would have been re-employed. Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle,--U.S. ------,------, 97 S.Ct. 568, 573-575, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977); Coletti’s Furniture, Inc. v. NLRB, 1 Cir., 1977, 550 F.2d 1292. As to whether this type of case lends itself to a motion for summary judgment, we express no comment.

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: 0