Some lawyers were still in their swaddling clothes when the case known as William G. Moore v. Michael Hartman got its start.

Suits & Sentences is speaking figuratively. But still: on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit kept the case going longer. And this is no ordinary case: three years ago, it went to the Supreme Court, where justices used it to set the rule governing retaliatory prosecution cases.

Mr. Moore is suing postal inspectors for retaliatory prosecution. A prosecution, it should be noted, that took place during the Reagan administration. As appellate judge David Sentelle noted in the opinion Tuesday:

"Over twenty years ago, appellant William Moore was indicted and charged with  participation in an illegal conspiracy. At the close of the  government’s evidence, the trial court dismissed all charges.  After his acquittal, appellant filed this action asserting  retaliatory prosecution claims."

The dispute revolves around Mr. Moore's work as chief executive officer of Recognition Equipment Inc., which specialized in optical scanning technology capable of scanning multiple lines. The firm successfully lobbied Congress to resist the Postal Service's push for a single-line scanner and its reliance on the new nine-digit zip code.

Insert important technical details here.

Moore won the lobbying effort. But as Sentelle noted, postal investigators subsequently began looking into alleged kickbacks. Moore calls this retaliation. To prevail, the Supreme Court has ruled, Moore must show among other things that there was no probable cause for prosecutors to pursue the underlying charges.

Moore has some evidence on his behalf; including, as Sentelle noted, "senior attorneys in the U.S. Attorney’s Office allegedly stated in memoranda that the government’s evidence against appellant
was “extremely thin,” and openly questioned whether charges should be brought against appellant." A trial judge had determined, however, that the fact of a valid indictment was itself proof that prosecutors had probable cause.

But in its ruling Tuesday, the appellate court concluded that the power of an indictment in defeating a retaliatory prosecution claim can be overcome. Saith the appellate panel:

"A court may look beyond an indictment to “protect the accused from  harmful consequences” when his constitutional rights are violated."

Now, to prevail at trial, Mr. Moore must "present evidence that the indictment was produced by
fraud, corruption, perjury, fabricated evidence, or other wrongful conduct undertaken in bad faith."