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:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND v. CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE COMPANY OF MARYLAND
No. 84-1362.
Argued January 13, 1986
Decided May 27, 1986
Kirk J. Emge argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner.
Jack D. Smith argued the cause for the Federal Communications Commission as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Fried, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Christopher J. Wright, Daniel M. Armstrong, and Jane E. Mago.
D. Michael Stroud argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were J. William Sarver, Mark J. Mathis, and Daniel I. Prywes.
A brief of amici curiae urging reversal was filed for the State of California et al. by Janice E. Kerr, J. Calvin Simpson, Mark E. Fogelman, Ellen S. LeVine, Joseph I. Lieberman, Attorney General of Connecticut, William B. Gundling, Peter J. Jenkelunas, and Phyllis E. Lemell, Assistant Attorneys General, Howard C. Davenport, Wiliam S. Bilenky, Philip Stoffregen, Patrick Nugent, William Paul Rodgers, Jr., Jack Shreve, Stephen L. Skipper, Robert Waldrum, Joseph G. Donahue, William E. Furber, John K. Keane, Jr., Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, Don L. Keskey and Leo H. Friedman, Assistant Attorneys General, Lynda S. Mounts, Brian Moline, Ellyn Elise Crutcher, Michael R. Fontham, and Marshall B. Brinkley.
A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for American Telephone and Telegraph Co. et al. by Michael Boudin, Thomas J. Reiman, Vincent L. Sgrosso, W. Preston Granbery, and John B. Messenger.
Per Curiam.
We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion in Louisiana Public Service Comm’n v. FCC, ante, p. 355.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0