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:
BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN et al. v. O’CONNELL et al.
No. 158.
Argued January 14, 1969.
Decided May 26, 1969
Arnold B. Elkind argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioners in No. 158. David Leo Uelmen argued the cause for petitioners in No. 172. With him on the briefs were David Previant, John J. Naughton, James P. Reedy, and Gerry M. Miller.
Lee LeibiJc argued the cause for respondents in each case. With him on the briefs was Ruth Weyand.
Harold A. Ross filed briefs for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers as amicus curiae urging reversal in both cases.
Harold C. Heiss filed a brief for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen as amicus curiae urging affirmance in both cases.
Together with No. 172, Dirks et al. v. Birkholz et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Per Curiam.
The judgments are vacated and the cases are remanded to the respective district courts with instructions to dismiss the cases as moot.

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: 1