9th Circuit: McColloch v. Bisignano Not For Publication Opinion Filed

• The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed an opinion in the case of Beverly M. McColloch v. Bisignano, case number 25-77.
• This filing occurred on November 4, 2026, with Molly C. Dwyer serving as the Clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• The opinion is designated as "not for publication," meaning it does not establish binding legal precedent.
• Consequently, this decision cannot be cited as authoritative guidance in future legal proceedings.
• Legal professionals must understand that this ruling resolves the specific dispute but does not contribute to general case law.

Lawyers should be acutely aware that while such an opinion reflects a court's decision on a particular set of facts, it holds no precedential value.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently processed a document in the case of Beverly M. McColloch against Bisignano, identified as case number 25-77. This filing occurred on November 4, 2026, under the oversight of Molly C. Dwyer, the Clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The document itself is an original record pertaining to the proceedings between the named parties.

This particular action, McColloch v. Bisignano, represents a decision rendered by the appellate court. While the specifics of the underlying dispute are not detailed in the filing information, the procedural status of the document provides crucial insight into its legal weight and future applicability. The court's handling of this matter reflects its standard operational procedures for appellate review within the 9th Circuit.

A significant aspect of the McColloch v. Bisignano 9th Circuit filing is its designation as a "not for publication" opinion. This classification by the US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit carries specific and critical implications for legal professionals and the broader judicial system. Unlike published opinions, which establish binding precedent and contribute to the body of case law, opinions marked "not for publication" are intended to resolve the specific dispute between the parties without creating new legal principles that would apply universally. This practice helps manage the volume of published decisions and focuses precedential authority on cases that genuinely break new legal ground or clarify existing ambiguities.

The primary consequence of a "not for publication opinion" is that it cannot be cited as precedent in future cases. This means that while the court has issued a ruling on the merits of case 25-77, that ruling does not serve as authoritative guidance for other courts or litigants facing similar legal questions. The November 4 2026 filing, therefore, concludes the immediate dispute between Beverly M. McColloch and Bisignano but does not expand or clarify the law in a general sense, nor does it bind future panels of the Ninth Circuit.

For attorneys practicing within the jurisdiction of the US Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit, understanding the distinction of a "not for publication opinion" is paramount. Lawyers should be acutely aware that while such an opinion reflects a court's decision on a particular set of facts, it holds no precedential value. Consequently, legal arguments in subsequent cases cannot rely on the reasoning or outcome presented in McColloch v. Bisignano to support their positions, as doing so would violate court rules regarding citation of non-precedential authority. This rule is crucial for maintaining the integrity and predictability of the legal system, ensuring that only well-reasoned and broadly applicable decisions become part of the binding legal framework.

This limitation is designed to prevent the proliferation of opinions that address routine legal issues or turn heavily on factual determinations unique to a specific case, thereby reserving published opinions for matters of broader legal significance. Therefore, despite the formal filing on November 4, 2026, and the resolution it provides for the parties involved in case 25-77, legal practitioners must refrain from citing this particular decision as binding authority when advocating before the Ninth Circuit or other courts. Its utility is confined strictly to the parties directly involved in the original document.

This 'Not for Publication' opinion from the Ninth Circuit means it cannot be cited as precedent in future cases. Lawyers should be aware that while it reflects a court's decision, it holds no precedential value and should not be relied upon to argue points of law.

Source: Original reporting via U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filing.