Pinpoint · Judgment search

British United Shoe Machinery Co Ltd v A Fussell & Sons Ltd

(1908) 25 RPC 631

1908 · Find the judgment

Cited by 19 indexed judgments

All Distinguished 1 Applied or followed 2 Cited 16

1999: 1 citing judgment 2000: 1 citing judgment 2002: 1 citing judgment 2003: 1 citing judgment 2004: 1 citing judgment 2005: 2 citing judgments 2006: 1 citing judgment 2007: 1 citing judgment 2009: 2 citing judgments, 1 negative 2011: 1 citing judgment 2012: 1 citing judgment 2013: 1 citing judgment 2014: 1 citing judgment 2016: 1 citing judgment 2017: 1 citing judgment 2022: 2 citing judgments 1908 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. ICI Chemicals & Polymers Pty Ltd v Lubrizol Corp Inc [1999] FCA 662 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 10× · judgment
  2. The Grain Pool of WA v The Commonwealth [2000] HCA 14 Cited High Court of Australia · cited 69× · judgment
  3. Aktiebolaget Hässle v Alphapharm Pty Limited [2002] HCA 59 Cited High Court of Australia · cited 158× · judgment
  4. Microsoft Corporation v Intertrust Technologies Corporation [2003] FCA 656 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  5. Gambro Pty Limited v Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Limited [2004] FCA 323 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 15× · judgment
  6. Sachtler GMBH & Co KG v RE Miller Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 788 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 45× · judgment
  7. Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 255 Applied or followed Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 2× · judgment
  8. Clorox Australia Pty Ltd v International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 261 Applied or followed Federal Court of Australia · cited 13× · judgment
  9. Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Doric Products Pty Ltd [No 2] [2007] HCA 21 Cited High Court of Australia · cited 112× · judgment
  10. Smith & Nephew Pty Ltd v Wake Forest University Health Sciences [2009] FCAFC 142 Distinguished Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 16× · judgment
  11. Fermiscan Pty Ltd, Fermiscan Australia Pty Ltd, Fiberscan Pty Ltd v Veronica Jean James [2009] NSWCA 355 Cited NSW Court of Appeal · cited 12× · judgment
  12. Danisco A/S v Novozymes A/S (No 2) [2011] FCA 282 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 12× · judgment
  13. Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2012] FCAFC 102 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 18× · judgment
  14. Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No 4) [2013] FCA 162 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 20× · judgment
  15. Streetworx Pty Ltd v Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1366 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 21× · judgment
  16. Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 27 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 127× · judgment
  17. Coretell Pty Ltd v Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 54 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 12× · judgment
  18. Jusand Nominees Pty Ltd v Rattlejack Innovations Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 540 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 4× · judgment
  19. Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Konami Australia Pty Limited (No 3) [2022] FCA 1373 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment

Tree of authority

Built upon

Later cases citing this one, in order of decision, and the cases citing them in turn. The most cited are shown at each level.

This judgment is not in the index, so the authorities it cites are not known here. It is shown because indexed judgments cite it.

How the citator works

Citations are read from the text of each indexed judgment. A report citation written alongside a neutral citation, such as [2008] HCA 9; (2008) 234 CLR 50, teaches the citator that both name the same case, so later citations by either are counted together.

Treatment is read from the words in the sentence that cites the case: overruled or disapproved; not followed or declined to follow; distinguished or distinguishable; doubted; applied, followed or adopted. Anything else is cited. It is a guide to which judgments to read, not a judicial history: a judgment that discusses a case at length without one of those words is shown as citing it, and one mentioning several cases in a sentence may attach the word to all of them.

Only judgments in this index are counted, mostly the High Court, the Federal Court and New South Wales courts and tribunals since 2006. Earlier cases appear as authorities but their own authorities are unknown, so a tree ends there. Check a treatment by reading the passage before relying on it.

Judgment text is from the Open Australian Legal Corpus (Isaacus, CC BY 4.0) and the courts’ own websites. Each judgment links to its official version: read it before relying on anything here.