Pinpoint · Judgment search

Timar v Republic of Hungary

[1999] FCA 1518

Federal Court of Australia · 5 November 1999 · Official judgment

Cited by 16 indexed judgments

All Cited 16

2000: 1 citing judgment 2001: 2 citing judgments 2004: 1 citing judgment 2009: 3 citing judgments 2015: 1 citing judgment 2017: 1 citing judgment 2018: 1 citing judgment 2019: 1 citing judgment 2020: 2 citing judgments 2021: 2 citing judgments 2023: 1 citing judgment 1999 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. Cabal v United Mexican States (No 3) [2000] FCA 1204 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 37× · judgment
  2. Timar v The Minister for Justice & Customs [2001] FCA 295 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 4× · judgment
  3. Timar v Minister for Justice & Customs [2001] FCA 663 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  4. McCrea v Minister for Customs & Justice [2004] FCA 1273 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 5× · judgment
  5. O'Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCA 618 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 6× · judgment
  6. Snedden v Republic of Croatia [2009] FCAFC 111 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 8× · judgment
  7. O’Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCAFC 184 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 9× · judgment
  8. Kalinovas v Republic of Lithuania [2015] FCA 961 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  9. Liem v Republic of Indonesia [2017] FCA 1303 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 2× · judgment
  10. Liem v Republic of Indonesia [2018] FCAFC 135 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 9× · judgment
  11. Rivas v Republic of Chile [2019] FCA 1940 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  12. Rivas v The Republic of Chile [2020] FCA 737 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  13. Republic of Chile v Rivas [2020] NSWLC 9 Cited Local Court of NSW · judgment
  14. Ireland v Dunne [2021] FCA 245 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  15. Rivas v Republic of Chile [2021] FCA 693 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  16. Pauga v Chief Executive of Queensland Corrective Services [2023] FCAFC 58 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 1× · judgment

Tree of authority

Built on

The authorities this case relies on, earliest first, and the authorities those relied on. Open a branch to go further back.

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.

Authorities cited (14)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77 Cited cited 198×
  2. Zoeller v Federal Republic of Germany (1988) 19 FCR 64 Applied or followed cited 8×
  3. Klepp v Gibb (1988) 81 ALR 383 Cited cited 2×
  4. Wiest v Director of Public Prosecutions (1988) 86 ALR 464 Cited cited 8×
  5. Wiest v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] FCA 450 Applied or followed cited 70×
  6. Zoeller v Federal Republic of Germany [1989] FCA 802 Applied or followed cited 71×
  7. Todhunter v Attorney-General (Cth) (1994) 52 FCR 228 Cited cited 11×
  8. Harris v Attorney-General (Cth) (1994) 52 FCR 386 Cited cited 75×
  9. Todhunter v United States of America (1995) 57 FCR 70 Cited cited 34×
  10. Prabowo v Republic of Indonesia (1995) 61 FCR 258 Cited cited 14×
  11. Public Prosecutions (Cth), Director of v Kainhofer [1995] HCA 35 Applied or followed cited 87×
  12. Papazoglou v Republic of the Philippines (1997) 74 FCR 108 Cited cited 26×
  13. Federal Republic of Germany v Parker (1998) 84 FCR 323 Cited cited 14×
  14. De Bruyn v Republic of South Africa [1999] FCA 1344 Applied or followed cited 29×
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.