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:
NATURAL GAS PIPELINE CO. v. PANOMA CORPORATION et al.
NO. 191.
Argued March 28-29, 1955.
Decided April 11, 1955.
Douglas F. Smith argued the cause for appellant in Nos. 191 and 321. Clarence H. Boss argued the cause for appellant in No. 321. With them on the brief were D. H. Culton, Coleman Hayes, Warren T. Spies and Arthur R. Seder, Jr.
Mac Q. Williamson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, and T. Murray Robinson argued the cause for appellees in No. 191. Hugh B. Cox argued the cause for appellees in No. 321. With them on a joint brief were Rayburn L. Foster, Harry D. Turner, R. M. Williams and Kenneth Heady. Mr. Robinson and Leon Shipp also filed a brief for appellees in No. 191.
Per Curiam.
In these cases Oklahoma has attempted to fix a minimum price to be paid for natural gas, after its production and gathering has ended, by a company which transports the gas for resale in interstate commerce. We held in Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672, that such a sale and transportation cannot be regulated by a State but are subject to the exclusive regulation of the Federal Power Commission. The Phillips case, therefore, controls this one.
We disagree with the contention of the appellees that Cities Service Gas Co. v. Peerless Oil and Gas Co., 340 U. S. 179, and Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Oklahoma, 340 U. S. 190, are applicable here. In those cases we were dealing with constitutional questions and not the construction of the Natural Gas Act. The latter question was specifically not passed upon in those cases.
Reversed.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 1