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.
  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.
  When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
  
  Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "other". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.
choices: medical clinics, health organizations, nursing homes, medical doctors, medical labs, or other private health care facilities private attorney or law firm media - including magazines, newspapers, radio & TV stations and networks, cable TV, news organizations school - for profit private educational enterprise (including business and trade schools) housing, car, or durable goods rental or lease entertainment: amusement parks, race tracks, for profit camps, record companies, movie theaters and producers, ski resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. information processing consulting security and/or maintenance service other service (including accounting) other (including a business pension fund) unclear