Travelers Indem. Co., 802 F.2d 1164 (9th Cir.1986), in support of its argument. There, in a public works case governed by the Miller Act, the court looked to state law to determine whether a lien release was valid. The court stated that “[u]nder Arizona law a release must be supported by consideration.” Id. at 1167 (citation omitted). However, when Youngstown was decided, Arizona case law required that consideration be provided. See Youngstown, 802 F.2d at 1167 (citing State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Rossini, 482 P.2d 484, 488-89, 14 Ariz.App. 235, 239-40, vacated 490 P.2d 567, 107 Ariz. 561 (1971)). After the Youngstown decision, Arizona enacted A.R.S. § 33-1008. Therefore, A.R.S. § 33-1008 controls our inquiry. See Wolfson v. Watts (In re Watts), 298 F.3d 1077, 1083 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Endo’s lien release was an unconditional
holding that application of the doctrine of law of the case is discretionary and that a district court abuses its discretion in applying the law of the case doctrine only if 1 the first decision was clearly erroneous 2 an intervening change in the law occurred 3 the evidence on remand was substantially different 4 other changed circumstances exist or 5 a manifest injustice would otherwise result holding that when intervening supreme court case law is clearly irreconcilable with a prior circuit decision a panel of this court is bound by the later and controlling authority and should reject the prior circuit opinion holding a threejudge panel may not reexamine normally controlling circuit precedent in the face of an intervening united states supreme court decision unless the reasoning or theory of our prior circuit authority is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning or theory of intervening higher authority holding that an intervening change in state law allowed a result that would otherwise be inconsistent with a prior ninth circuit decision holding a three judge panel  cannot reconsider or overrule the decision of a prior panel unless an intervening supreme court decision undermines an existing precedent of the ninth circuit and both cases are closely on point internal quotations and citation omitted