What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the manner in which the Court took jurisdiction. The Court uses a variety of means whereby it undertakes to consider cases that it has been petitioned to review. The most important ones are the writ of certiorari, the writ of appeal, and for legacy cases the writ of error, appeal, and certification. For cases that fall into more than one category, identify the manner in which the court takes jurisdiction on the basis of the writ. For example, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), an original jurisdiction and a mandamus case, should be coded as mandamus rather than original jurisdiction due to the nature of the writ. Some legacy cases are "original" motions or requests for the Court to take jurisdiction but were heard or filed in another court. For example, Ex parte Matthew Addy S.S. & Commerce Corp., 256 U.S. 417 (1921) asked the Court to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal judge. Do not code these cases as "original" jurisdiction cases but rather on the basis of the writ.

Opinion:
KIMBERLIN v. QUINLAN et al.
No. 93-2068.
Argued April 26, 1995 —
Decided June 12, 1995
Howard T. Rosenblatt argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Jerrold J. Ganzfried and Ellen S. Winter.
Deputy Solicitor General Bender argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, and Cornelia T. L. Pillard.
Michael L. Martinez argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Steven D. Gordon and William J. Dempster
Anthony C. Epstein, Steven R. Shapiro, Arthur B. Spitzer, Leslie A Brueekner, and Marc D. Stern filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the State of Hawaii et al. by Margery S. Bronster, Attorney General of Hawaii, and Girard D. Lau, Deputy Attorney General, Winston Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas, Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General of California, M. Jane Brady, Attorney General of Delaware, Alan G. Lance, Attorney General of Idaho, Pamela Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General of Kansas, Chris Gorman, Attorney General of Kentucky, Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General of Minnesota, Mike Moore, Attorney General of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General of Montana, Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General of New Hampshire, Victoria A Graffeo, Attorney General of New York, Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General of Ohio, Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Jeffrey B. Pine, Attorney General of Rhode Island, Mark Barnett, Attorney General of South Dakota, Jan Graham, Attorney General of Utah, Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General of Vermont, James S. Gilmore III, Attorney General of Virginia, James E. Doyle, Attorney General of Wisconsin, Richard Weil, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Alva A. Swan, Acting Attorney General of the Virgin Islands.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further consideration in light of Johnson v. Jones, ante, p. 304.

Question: What is the manner in which the Court took jurisdiction?

Choices:
cert
appeal
bail
certification
docketing fee
rehearing or restored to calendar for reargument
injunction
mandamus
original
prohibition
stay
writ of error
writ of habeas corpus
unspecified, other

Answer: 0