65 F.3d 148 - Malik v. Brown — 65 F.3d 148

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently January 2022

8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 *149Before BEEZER and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges, and SAMUEL CONTI, District Judge*

¶3ORDER

¶4Sua sponte, we recall the mandate. Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988).

¶5It 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.

¶6RFRA 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.

¶7Upon entry of this ORDER, the mandate shall issue forthwith.