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:
ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. v. ERIE LACKAWANNA RAILROAD CO. et al.
No. 71-107.
Argued April 17-18, 1972
Decided May 15, 1972
Devereux Milburn argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Louis L. Stanton, Jr., Jerome L. Getz, and Frank G. Kurka.
E. Barrett Prettyman, Jr., argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondent Erie Lackawanna Railroad Co. were Timothy J. Bloomfield and Lloyd W. Roberson.
Per Curiam.
We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 442 F. 2d 694 (1971), affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, 315 F. Supp. 357 (1970). 404 U. S. 909 (1971). We agree that in this noncollision admiralty case the District Court properly dismissed petitioner’s third-party complaint for contribution against respondent Erie on the authority of Halcyon Lines v. Haenn Ship Corp., 342 U. S. 282 (1952). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Powell 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