What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify whether administrative action occurred in the context of the case prior to the onset of litigation. The activity may involve an administrative official as well as that of an agency. To determine whether administration action occurred in the context of the case, consider the material which appears in the summary of the case preceding the Court's opinion and, if necessary, those portions of the prevailing opinion headed by a I or II. Action by an agency official is considered to be administrative action except when such an official acts to enforce criminal law. If an agency or agency official "denies" a "request" that action be taken, such denials are considered agency action. Exclude: a "challenge" to an unapplied agency rule, regulation, etc.; a request for an injunction or a declaratory judgment against agency action which, though anticipated, has not yet occurred; a mere request for an agency to take action when there is no evidence that the agency did so; agency or official action to enforce criminal law; the hiring and firing of political appointees or the procedures whereby public officials are appointed to office; attorney general preclearance actions pertaining to voting; filing fees or nominating petitions required for access to the ballot; actions of courts martial; land condemnation suits and quiet title actions instituted in a court; and federally funded private nonprofit organizations.

Opinion:
TEXAS v. NEW JERSEY et al.
No. 13,
Original.
Decided February 1, 1965.
Decree entered April 26, 1965.
It Is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed as Follows :
1. Each item of property in question in this case as to which a last-known, address of the person entitled thereto is shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by the State of that last-known address, as shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company, to the extent of that State’s power under its own laws to escheat or to take custodially.
2. Each item of property in question in this case as to which there is no address of the person entitled thereto shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New Jersey, the State in which Sun Oil Company was incorporated, to the extent of New Jersey’s power under its own laws to escheat or to take custodially, subject to the right of any other State to recover such property from New Jersey upon proof that the last-known address of the creditor was within that other State’s borders.
3. Each item of property in question in this case as to which the last-known address of the person entitled thereto as shown on the books and records of defendant Sun Oil Company is in a State, the laws of which do not provide for the escheat of such property, is subject to escheat or custodial taking only by New Jersey, the State in which Sun Oil Company was incorporated, to the extent of New Jersey’s power under its own laws to escheat or to take custodially, subject to the right of the State of the last-known address to recover the property from New Jersey if and when the law of the State of the last-known address makes provision for escheat or custodial taking of such property.
4. Any relief prayed for by any party to this action which is not hereby granted is denied.

Question: Did administrative action occur in the context of the case?

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0