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:
IDAHO ex rel. ANDRUS, GOVERNOR, et al. v. OREGON et al.
No. 67, Orig.
Argued November 8, 1976
Decided December 7, 1976
Wayne L. Kidwell, Attorney General of Idaho, argued the cause for plaintiffs. With him on the brief were Terry E. Coffin, Deputy Attorney General, and Matthew J. Mullaney, Jr.
Lee Johnson, Attorney General, argued the cause for defendant State of Oregon. With him on the brief were W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, and Raymond P. Underwood, Beverly B. Hall, and Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorneys General. Slade Gorton, Attorney General, argued the cause for defendant State of Washington. With him on the brief was Edward B. Mackie, Deputy Attorney General.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed by Solicitor General Bork for the United States; by Wendell Wyatt for the Columbia River Fishermens Protective Union; and by Robert E. Smylie for the Izaah Walton League of America, Inc., et al.
Per Curiam.
The Court has considered the written submissions of the parties and heard oral argument by the Attorneys General of the States with respect to the motion of the State of Idaho for leave to file a bill of complaint. It having been concluded that the Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction of this case to- the extent that the complaint prays that the Court declare that the State of Idaho is entitled to an equitable portion of the upriver anadromous fishery of the Columbia River Basin and that the Court determine Idaho’s equitable portion based on the evidence and award costs and appropriate incidental relief, the motion for leave to file is hereby granted to that extent. The motion is in all other respects denied. This order is not a judgment that the bill of complaint, to the extent that permission to file is granted, states a claim upon which relief may be granted. This order also leaves open the question of the indispensability of the United States as a party for decision after evidence, in the event the United States does not enter its appearance in the case. The States of Oregon and Washington are directed to file answers to the bill of complaint or to otherwise plead within 60 days and process is ordered to issue accordingly.
It is so ordered.

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: 8