MALIK v. BROWN (1995)

United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit.

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

No. 91-36320.

Decided: September 08, 1995

Before BEEZER and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges, and SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge.*

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-1 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.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law