Opinion

Dawud Halisi MALIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neal BROWN, Defendant-Appellee

65 F.3d 148
95 Daily Journal DAR 12141
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7127
1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25258
1995 WL 529445

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed: Sep 8, 1995
Status: Published
On the bench: Beezer, Hall, Conti
Cited by: 26 cases
Authority: More cited than 74.6%

The opinion

ORDER

Sua sponte, we recall the mandate.

Zipfel v. Halliburton Co.,

861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988).

It has come to the attention of the court that Congress adopted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-l to 2000bb — 4 (“RFRA”), prior to the date our opinion was filed. RFRA was not called to our attention by the parties in a post-filing petition. Our research did not disclose its existence prior to filing.

RFRA sets a different standard than the one adopted in our opinion.

Malik v. Brown,

16 F.3d 330, 333-34 (9th Cir.1994). If we applied RFRA, Malik would still have been the prevailing party. This order memorializes our adoption of RFRA as the proper standard governing this case.

Upon entry of this ORDER, the mandate shall issue forthwith.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.