Edited sentence: " As late as 1986 historian Roger D.And if we should rely on it in any respect, in the first instance, it would but give the adversary opportunity to make us ridiculous.For my part, I cannot see, as explained before, that this decision can have the least effect, other than to dismiss the case, and to deny the relief prayed for.Guy Hammond, an Akron, Ohio attorney writes to Israel A.He refutes Launius "These polemical proclamations of victory may have carried some weight in the court of public opinion...The only difficulty, at least from today's perspective, was that the Reorganization's polemical proclamations of judicially determined legitimacy actually had no legal basis whatsoever.In 1942 E.In 2004 Loving published extensive research on ownership of the Kirtland Temple.In fact, the legal result of the lawsuit was that the title stood exactly as it had before the case was filed; legally, nothing had been accomplished.Launius still claimed "It would be quibbling to suggest that the outcome of the Kirtland Temple Suit did not give the Reorganized church legal ownership of the property.Smith, "From your letter I get the impression that you still cling to the notion that Judge Sherman's decision in Common Pleas at Painesville might be relied on.The March 15, 1880, issue of the church organ Saints' Herald also omitted the last two sentences which stated that the case was dismissed.This finding goes to the very essence of the matter and can hardly be dismissed as mere 'quibbling'