The Kimble Case Sixth Circuit Published Opinion is Becoming a Cited Case In Other Federal Matters: Supreme Court Exxon Case cites the same

The Sixth Circuit Opinion on the national media covered lawsuit and police
misconduct incident is now available on line and thru various sources on
the internet.

The published opinion 439 F3d. 331 2006, demonstrates how a solo lawyer under tremendous
pressure from the local regional bar association of Mahoning County, a federal district
court and a large insurance industry defense firm with close ties to State Supreme
Court Chief Justice Tom Moyers won and won significiantly on the law and thru
old fashioned hard work and critical legal reasoning which won the day at
a leve that is far and above the cronyism that is so common at lower level
state and district courts in the Northern District of Ohio.

The Kimble opinion clearly demonstrates the Attorney Olivito, six months
prior to his state supreme court suspension which was a so thinly veiled
attack on his law license and reputation derived from the locale where this
national televised and high profile police misconduct federal claim arose
directed by both a Greek police chief and a greek federal judge from
Youngstown Ohio won the day for the client with his solo efforts
by strongly overcoming a Weston Hurd novel argument that attempted
to use and maniuplate the procedural case's history at the district court
in Youngstown.

The opinion which is turning up in several post Kimble matters has also been recently cited by the U.S. Supreme Court for its reasoning and legal effect.

The case is available on several links and is available on line at the links listed
at the side bar in this blog at Kimble v. Hoso.

It represents a clear triumph of the individual and the solo plaintiff and solo plaintiff
trial counsel over much greater odds, including a powerful local police and city interests
as well as politicized law officials and even a questionable judicial officer named
Peter Economus who is a Clinton appointee from the 1990's.

This high profile case is very interesting for several reasons but among them is the
the interesting interplay between politics and law and even what and whose interests
do when they meet at one district court level but yet are prevented at the highest court levels where actual legal reasoning and independent judicial decision making become the basis for a geniune independent legal outcome and decision, free from personal lawyer bias and insurance industry influence.