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 interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court 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".

S. S. SILBERBLATT, INC. and The Sterling Company, Appellants, v. The RENEGOTIATION BOARD, Appellee.
No. 517, Docket 33613.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued April 20, 1970.
Decided May 5, 1970.
Charles H. Tuttle, New York City (Breed, Abbott & Morgan, Edward J. Ross and Miriam C. Feigelson, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
Ronald R. Glancz, Atty., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C. (William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., of counsel), for appellee.
Before MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges, and WEINFELD, District Judge.
Of the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
The decision of the Tax Court, holding (1) the provisions of the Renegotiation Act of 1951, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. § 1211 et seq.) to be applicable to excessive profits realized under a Capehart Act housing contract (42 U.S.C §§ 1594-1594k; 12 U.S.C. §§ 1748-1748h-3) and (2) such application to be constitutional, is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Mulroney, reported at 51 T.C. No. 89 (March 4, 1969).

Question: Did the interpretation of state or local law, executive order, administrative regulation, doctrine, or rule of procedure by the court favor the appellant?
A. No
B. Yes
C. Mixed answer
D. Issue not discussed
Answer: