Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 ME 2 - State v. LOI NGO

State v. LOI NGO’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2025

6 state decisions

40200720102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Aldus v. State · State v. Trott · State v. Johnson · State v. Liberty · Diep v. State

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “§ 2124. Jurisdictional prerequisite of restraint or impediment An action for post-conviction review of a criminal judgment of this State or of a post-sentencing proceeding following the criminal judgment may be brought if the person seeking relief demonstrates that the challenged criminal judgment or post-sentencing proceeding is causing a present restraint or other specified impediment as described in subsections 1 to 3: 1. Present restraint by criminal judgment. Present restraint or impediment as a direct result of the challenged criminal judgment: A. Incarceration pursuant to the sentence imposed as a result of the criminal judgment which is challenged; B. Other restraint, including probation, parole, other conditional release or a juvenile disposition other than incarceration or probation, imposed as a result of the sentence for the criminal judgment which is challenged; C. A sentence of unconditional discharge resulting from a criminal judgment, for a period of 2 years following the date of sentence; D. Incarceration, other restraint or an impediment specified in paragraphs A, B and C which is to be served in the future, although the convicted or adjudicated person is not in execution of the sentence either because of release on bail pending appeal of the criminal judgment or because another sentence must be served first; or E. A fine imposed by the challenged criminal judgment which has not been paid; 3. Present indirect impediment. Present restraint or impediment resul”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “The fact that a party has not availed himself of the specified rule or statute in a proper and timely manner, or anticipates that the procedure may not provide complete relief or would be unconstitutional as applied, does not change the fact that a procedure has been made available.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.