Pinpoint · Judgment search

C v MIMA

[1999] FCA 1663

Federal Court of Australia · 2 December 1999 · Official judgment

Cited by 0 indexed judgments

No indexed judgment cites this case yet.

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.

Authorities cited (14)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Lazar v Taito (Australia) Pty Ltd [1985] FCA 35 Applied or followed cited 21×
  2. Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1989] HCA 62 Applied or followed cited 873×
  3. Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin [1990] HCA 21 Applied or followed cited 736×
  4. Survival & Industrial Equipment (Newcastle) Pty Ltd v Owners of the Vessel Alley Cat [1992] FCA 319 Applied or followed cited 13×
  5. Muralidharan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 62 FCR 402 Cited cited 88×
  6. Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Minister for v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 Applied or followed cited 2,712×
  7. Sun v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 81 FCR 71 Applied or followed cited 142×
  8. Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo Wei Rong [1997] HCA 22 Applied or followed cited 776×
  9. Sharif v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 278 Applied or followed cited 4×
  10. Han v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 376 Cited cited 3×
  11. Rishmawi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 611 Applied or followed cited 13×
  12. X v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 697 Cited cited 6×
  13. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam [1999] FCA 719 Applied or followed cited 297×
  14. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21 Applied or followed cited 971×
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.