State v. Ali’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Padilla v. Kentucky · Aldus v. State · State v. Nichols · State v. Trott · State v. Blakesley
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“uniformly hold that when a direct appeal is not available, post-conviction review is “the exclusive method of review of those criminal judgments.” 15 M.R.S, § 2122 (2010); see State v. Trott, 2004 ME 15, ¶¶ 5, 13 , 841 A.2d 789 (concluding that post-conviction review in the Superior Court is the proper forum for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also Aldus v. State, 2000 ME 47, ¶ 11 , 748 A.2d 463 (considering on appeal an ineffective assistance of counsel claim brought by a noncitizen facing deportation using the post-conviction review procedure).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson“[S]uch claims will only be considered after a certificate of probable cause has been issued following a hearing on a post-conviction petition.” Ali, 2011 ME 122, ¶ 20 , 32 A.3d 1019 . 2 . The prosecutor thrice mistakenly referred to Larsen’s son as”
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.