Pinpoint · Judgment search

Wu v Attorney-General of the Commonwealth

(1997) 79 FCR 303

1997 · Find the judgment

Cited by 17 indexed judgments

All Distinguished 1 Applied or followed 1 Cited 15

1999: 6 citing judgments, 1 negative 2000: 2 citing judgments 2001: 5 citing judgments 2003: 1 citing judgment 2011: 1 citing judgment 2019: 1 citing judgment 2021: 1 citing judgment 1997 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. Bertran v Vanstone [1999] FCA 464 Applied or followed Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  2. Timar v Republic of Hungary [1999] FCA 691 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  3. Bertran v Honourable Amanda Vanstone [1999] FCA 1117 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 2× · judgment
  4. Timar v Republic of Hungary [1999] FCA 1559 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 5× · judgment
  5. Peniche v Vanstone [1999] FCA 1688 Distinguished Federal Court of Australia · cited 13× · judgment
  6. von Arnim v Federal Republic of Germany [1999] FCA 1747 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 6× · judgment
  7. Cabal v United Mexican States [2000] FCA 7 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 11× · judgment
  8. Cabal v United Mexican States (No 2) [2000] FCA 295 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 6× · judgment
  9. Cabal v United Mexican States [2001] FCA 97 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  10. R v Dutton [2001] NSWSC 135 Cited Supreme Court of NSW · judgment
  11. Kalejs v Republic of Latvia [2001] FCA 676 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  12. Toomer v Slipper [2001] FCA 981 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 9× · judgment
  13. United Mexican States v Cabal [2001] HCA 60 Cited High Court of Australia · cited 79× · judgment
  14. R v Rivera [2003] NSWSC 6 Cited Supreme Court of NSW · cited 1× · judgment
  15. Croker v Minister for Finance and Deregulation [2011] FCA 1188 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 5× · judgment
  16. Tsvetnenko v United States of America [2019] FCA 206 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  17. Noy v Secretary, Department of Social Services [2021] FCA 83 Cited Federal Court of Australia · 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.