CLEVELAND, Ohio - Attorneys for Jimmy Dimora say they are reviewing closely a U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday that mirrors issues brought up in the former county commissioner's 2012 trial.

The ruling overturned former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's public corruption conviction. It also offered key similarities with Dimora's public corruption trial. The decision limited the way federal prosecutors can bring public corruption cases to trial.

It is unclear whether Dimora can get a legal reprieve based on McDonnell's case, but his attorneys said they will study their options.

The ruling focused on whether an officeholder's typical daily duties, or official acts -- such as setting up meetings for constituents, talking to another official about a friend or making a speech -- can be interpreted as criminal. The court ruled those duties usually are not criminal, even in the case of an official accepting gifts or money from the person seeking the favors.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that federal law prohibits "quid pro quo,'' a legal term that means a public official receives something of value in exchange for some type of favorable work. But Roberts said that push can be overly broad.

"In the Government's view, nearly anything a public official accepts - from a campaign contribution to lunch - counts as a quid,'' Roberts wrote. "And nearly anything that a public official does - from arranging a meeting to inviting a guest to an event - counts as a quo.''

In McDonnell's case, according to court records, there were five such acts, including hosting events for a key contributor, arranging meetings with other Virginia officials and contacting officials about the contributor. A jury convicted McDonnell, and he was sentenced to two years in prison. He accepted tens of thousands of dollars in gifts from a Virginia businessman.

William Whitaker, who represented Dimora, said the similarities in the cases were clear. They had claimed at trial that Dimora was simply doing his job as a commissioner and that just because Dimora set up a meeting for a contractor or talked with an official from another department about the businessman did not mean those acts were criminal.

"We felt the statute was overbroad, and it sweeps innocent conduct withins its orbit,'' Whitaker said. "The jury was instructed on the overbroad definition of 'official acts,' permitting it to convict based on innocent conduct.''

Christian Grostic, an attorney who handled Dimora's appeals, said the cases of McDonnell and Dimora were quite similar, but he stopped short of saying what the Supreme Court's decision could mean for the former commissioner.

Federal prosecutors in Cleveland said in a statement that they are reviewing the opinion: "If any litigation ensues as a result of the opinion, we will respond.''

Dimora, 61, is serving a 28-year term for racketeering and 30 other corruption-related charges at a medium-security federal prison in Beckley, W.Va.

Prosecutors accused Dimora of accepting more than 100 bribes and attempting to fix eight court cases. They also accused him of employing six contractors at his home in Independence to build a resort-style backyard patio and pool house for free or at greatly discounted prices.

Dimora has exhausted his appeals, as appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have upheld his conviction. But federal law could offer him one last exception, based on the ruling Monday.

Carl Tobias, a constitutional professor at the University of Richmond School of Law, said Monday's ruling will make it harder for federal prosecutors to take some public corruption cases to trial. But that doesn't mean bribery cases will come to an end.

"It does narrow federal prosecutors' flexibility, though,'' Tobias said.

Others agreed.

"It will limit the breadth of the authority, but it will not eliminate the Justice Department's capacity to root out federal, state and local corruption,'' said Geoffrey Mearns, the president of Northern Kentucky University and the former dean of the Cleveland Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University. He also had worked as a federal prosecutor.

In his ruling, Roberts stressed that the McDonnell case involved limiting that flexibility.

"But our concern is not with the tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns,'' Roberts wrote. "It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.

"A more limited interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court.''