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:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION et al.
No. 459.
Decided December 14, 1959
Kent H. Brown and George H. Kenny for petitioner in No. 459.
J. David Mann, Jr. and J. Louis Monarch for United Gas Improvement Co., and Vincent P. McDevitt and Samuel Graff Miller for Philadelphia Electric Co., petitioners in No. 473.
Willard W. Gatchell and Howard E. Wahrenbrock for the Federal Power Commission; Richard J. Connor, John T. Miller, Jr., Thomas F. Broman, James B. Henderson and William N. Bonner, jr. for Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.; W. W. Heard and William J. Grove for Pan American Petroleum Corp.; Chas. B. EUard and Bernard A. Foster, Jr. for Atlantic Refining Co.; Gentry Lee and Bernard A. Foster, Jr. for Cities Service Production Co.; Carl Illig and William J. Merrill for Humble Oil & Refining-Co.; Clayton L. Orh and James D. Parriott for Ohio Oil Co.; Frank C. Bolton and William S. Richardson for Socony Mobil Oil Co., Inc. (successor to Magnolia Petroleum Co.); John C. Snodgrass for Pure Oil Co.; George D. Horning for Union Oil Co. of California; Robert E. May for Húnt, Trustee; Rayburn L. Foster, Harry D. Turner, Kenneth Heady, Charles E. McGee and Lambert McAllister for Phillips Petroleum Co.; Martin A. Row, Robert E. May and Omar L. Crook for Sun Oil Co., respondents.
Briefs of amici curiae in support of petitioners were filed by William M. Bennett for the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of California; John W. Reynolds,. Attorney General of Wisconsin, N. S. Hefjeman, Deputy Attorney General, Roy G. Tulane, Assistant Attorney General, and William E. Torkelson for the State of Wisconsin and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin; David Berger for the City of Philadelphia; David Stahl for the City of Pittsburgh; Joe W. Anderson, Roger Arnebergh, Alexander G. Brown, J. Elliott Drinard, N. H. Goldstick, Dion R. Holm, Claude V. Jonesj Walter J. Mattison; John C. Melaniphy, Barnett I. Shur, A. C. Van Soelen, Charles S. Rhyne and J. Parker Connor for the Member Municipalities of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers; Charles S. Rhyne and J. Parker Connor for the Alabama League of Municipalities; Edward Munce and Thomas M. Kerrigan for,.the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission; and Edward S. Kirby for Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
Together with No. 473, United Gas Improvement Co. et al. v. Federal Power Commission et al., also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same Count.
Per Curiam.
The motion to substitute Humble Oil & Refining Company, a Delaware corporation, in the place of Humble Oil & Refining Company, a Texas corporation, as a party respondent, is granted. The motions of Public Service Electric and Gas Company and the Alabama League of Municipalities for leave to file briefs, as amici curiae, are granted.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the cases are remanded to that court with directions to remand the cases to the Federal Power Commission for reconsideration and redetermination in the light of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 360 U. S. 378.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.

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

Choices:
No
Yes

Answer: 1