Pinpoint · Judgment search

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Arden

[1994] FCA 524 ; (1994) 20 AAR 285

Federal Court of Australia · 1994 · Find the judgment

Cited by 7 indexed judgments

All Cited 7

1996: 1 citing judgment 1999: 1 citing judgment 2000: 1 citing judgment 2002: 1 citing judgment 2005: 1 citing judgment 2015: 1 citing judgment 2023: 1 citing judgment 1994 1995 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. Australian Postal Corporation v Wallace, Marion Frances [1996] FCA 92 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  2. Balan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 827 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  3. Martin v Australian Postal Corporation [2000] FCA 1646 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  4. Comcare v Line [2002] FCA 553 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 2× · judgment
  5. Military Rehabilitation & Compensation Commission v SRGGGG [2005] FCA 342 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  6. Comcare v Power [2015] FCA 1502 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 9× · judgment
  7. Goldcoral Pty Ltd v Richmond Valley Council (No 2) [2023] NSWLEC 106 Cited Land and Environment Court of NSW · 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.