What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the treatment the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed, that is, whether the court below the Supreme Court (typically a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court) affirmed, reversed, remanded, denied or dismissed the decision of the court it reviewed (typically a trial court). Adhere to the language used in the "holding" in the summary of the case on the title page or prior to Part I of the Court's opinion. Exceptions to the literal language are the following: where the Court overrules the lower court, treat this a petition or motion granted; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing refuses to enforce or enjoins the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as reversed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing enforces the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as affirmed; where the court whose decision the Supreme Court is reviewing sets aside the decision of the court, tribunal, or agency which it reviewed, treat this as vacated; if the decision is set aside and remanded, treat it as vacated and remanded.

Opinion:
SAFEWAY STORES, INC., v. VANCE, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY.
No. 69.
Argued November 21, 1957.
Decided January 20, 1958.
John B. Tittmann argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Douglas Stripp.
Robert J. Nordhaus argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Sam Dazzo.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a companion case to No. 67, Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co., decided today, ante, p. 373. In the present case the Court of Appeals has held that a private action for treble damages does lie under § 4 of the Clayton Act for violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. 239 F. 2d 144. Because of the conflict with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the Nashville Milk Co. case, 238 F. 2d 86, we granted certiorari. 352 U. S. 1023.
The complaint in this case alleges both sales “at unreasonably low prices” and price discriminations in violation of § 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. For the reasons set forth in our Nashville Milk Co. opinion, ante, p. 373, we hold that the complaint should have been dismissed insofar as it rests on alleged unlawful selling at unreasonably low prices, and that the respondent was entitled to a trial as to the charges of unlawful price discrimination. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas, joined by The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Brennan, see ante, p. 383.]
The complaint does not ask for injunctive relief under § 16 of the Clayton Act.

Question: What treatment did the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed accorded the decision of the court it reviewed?

Choices:
stay, petition, or motion granted
affirmed
reversed
reversed and remanded
vacated and remanded
affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part
affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded
vacated
petition denied or appeal dismissed
modify
remand
unusual disposition

Answer: 2