opinion: Douglas K. KNUTSON, Arlen N. Benham, Geoffrey Beaty, Evan Francis Williams, Joseph W. Berthiaume, Kenneth W. Jackson, Jean E. Nyland, Daniel A. Dutra, Willard B. Kittredge, Robert A. Dutra, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The DAILY REVIEW, INC., a corporation, Bay Area Publishing Co., a corporation, Floyd L. Sparks, an individual, William Chilcote, an individual, Dallas Cleland, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
  No. 80-4089.
  United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
  Argued and Submitted Aug. 10, 1981.
  Decided Dec. 28, 1981.
  Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 16, 1982.
  Timothy H. Fine, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
  Thomas Paine, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
  Before SKELTON, Judge, United States Court of Claims, KILKENNY and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
  The Honorable Byron G. Skelton, Senior Judge, United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation.
  KILKENNY, Circuit Judge:
  This litigation is no stranger to us. It was originally initiated as an action by independent distributors of certain newspapers against appellees, publishers of these newspapers, in which it was claimed that both the appellees’ newspaper dealership contracts and its termination of its independent dealership system violated antitrust laws. Initially, the United States district court decisions found for the distributors on the price fixing count and for the appellees on the remaining counts, but awarded neither damages nor injunctive relief.
  On appeal, we held that the evidence supported the district court’s factual finding that there was no conspiracy between the publishers, that the distributors failed to show either that the publishers’ termination of its independent distribution system and conversion to an employee-distributor system effected a horizontal restraint on trade or that the termination was in furtherance of a price fixing conspiracy, and that the distributors failed to establish that the territorial division for distributors was part of a price fixing scheme. Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 548 F.2d 795 (CA9 1976). We disagreed, however, with the lower court’s analysis of the authorities on the issue of damages, and, consequently, we remanded the cause for a reconsideration of that issue.
  On remand, the district court thoroughly analyzed the record and the facts before it. In an extremely well written and exhaustive opinion, the district court found against the appellants on the issue of compensatory damages and held that the appellants were entitled to nominal damages only. Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 468 F.Supp. 226 (N.D. Cal.1979).
  Our examination of the record convinces us that the district court’s findings were not clearly erroneous and that its judgment must be affirmed. Our previous opinion did not instruct the district court that it must grant compensatory damages. Bearing in mind the caveat of our brethren in this circuit that we should avoid repetition and, where possible, follow a rule of brevity, we affirm the judgment of the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in its opinion. The finding of the district court that the appellants were entitled to nominal damages only was not clearly erroneous.
  JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
  Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 383 F.Supp. 1346 (N.D.Cal.1974); Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., 401 F.Supp. 1374 (N.D.Cal.1975).
instruction: 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 conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. 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".