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:
HOLT et al. v. ALLEGHANY CORP. et al.
No. 131.
Argued March 21, 1966.
Decided April 18, 1966.
Stuart N. Updike argued the cause for petitioners in both cases. With him on the briefs were Lee W. Meyer, Ronald S. Daniels and Richard J. Barnes.
Mark F. Hughes and Walter R. Mansfield argued the cause for respondents in both cases. With Mr. Hughes on the brief for respondent Alleghany Corp. were Allan F. Conwill and Vincent R. FitzPatrick. With Mr. Mansfield on the briefs for respondent Allan P. Kirby were Eugene V. Rostow and Breck P. McAllister; for respondent Fred M. Kirby were John E. Tobin and Ben Vinar; and for respondent Ireland were Eugene V. Rostow and John J. McCann.
Simon V. Haberman filed a brief for Randolph Phillips in No. 132, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.
Together with No. 132, Holt et al. v. Kirby et al., also on certiorari to the same court.
Per Curiam.
The writs of certiorari are dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice Black dissents from dismissal of the writs and would reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and district courts substantially for the reasons stated in Judge Friendly’s dissent in the Court of Appeals, 333 F. 2d 327, 338.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice White dissent from the dismissal of the writs, believing that these cases having been taken for review should be adjudicated on the merits.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Fortas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 0