Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Dawud Halisi MALIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neal BROWN, Defendant-Appellee
65 F.3d 148
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1995-09-08
- Topic
- bankruptcy
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.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dawud Halisi MALIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neal BROWN, Defendant-Appellee. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 26 opinions
MALIK v. BROWN,65 F.3d 148(9th Cir. 1995)
Dawud Halisi MALIK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Neal BROWN, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 91-36320.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Filed September 8, 1995.
Page 149
Before BEEZER and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges, and SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.fn*
[1]ORDER
[2] Sua sponte, we recall the mandate.Zipfel v. Halliburton Co.,861 F.2d 565,567(9th Cir. 1988).
[3] It has come to the attention of the court that Congress adopted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1to2000bb-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.
[4] RFRA sets a different standard than the one adopted in our opinion.Malik v. Brown16 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.
[5] Upon entry of this ORDER, the mandate shall issue forthwith.Page 176
- The Honorable Samuel Conti, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting designation. ↩