Pinpoint · Judgment search

Rahardja v Republic of Indonesia

[2000] FCA 1297

Federal Court of Australia · 14 September 2000 · Official judgment

Cited by 13 indexed judgments

All Applied or followed 2 Cited 11

2001: 2 citing judgments 2002: 1 citing judgment 2007: 1 citing judgment 2008: 1 citing judgment 2009: 2 citing judgments 2015: 1 citing judgment 2016: 1 citing judgment 2017: 1 citing judgment 2021: 1 citing judgment 2022: 1 citing judgment 2023: 1 citing judgment 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. Heslehurst v Government of New Zealand [2001] FCA 202 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 5× · judgment
  2. Cabal v United Mexican States [2001] FCA 427 Applied or followed Federal Court of Australia · cited 48× · judgment
  3. RAHARDJA v THE GOVERNOR, LONG BAY HOSPITAL & ANOR [2002] NSWSC 1249 Cited Supreme Court of NSW · judgment
  4. Brock v United States of America [2007] FCAFC 3 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 11× · judgment
  5. Minister for Home Affairs v Tervonen [2008] FCAFC 24 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 17× · judgment
  6. Snedden v Republic of Croatia [2009] FCA 30 Applied or followed Federal Court of Australia · cited 9× · judgment
  7. Snedden v Republic of Croatia [2009] FCAFC 111 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 8× · judgment
  8. Kalinovas v Republic of Lithuania [2015] FCA 961 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  9. Traljesic v Bosnia and Herzegovina [2016] FCA 383 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 3× · judgment
  10. Liem v Republic of Indonesia [2017] FCA 1303 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 2× · judgment
  11. Rivas v Republic of Chile [2021] FCA 693 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  12. Pauga v Samoa [2022] FCA 1097 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  13. 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 (15)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8 Cited cited 2,918×
  2. Re Cunningham (1966) 68 SR (NSW) 15 Cited cited 2×
  3. Fernandez v Government of Singapore [1971] 1 WLR 987 Cited cited 7×
  4. Riley v The Commonwealth [1985] HCA 82 Cited cited 35×
  5. Hempel v Attorney General (1987) 77 ALR 665 Cited cited 2×
  6. Zoeller v Federal Republic of Germany (1988) 19 FCR 64 Cited cited 8×
  7. Wiest v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] FCA 450 Cited cited 70×
  8. Zoeller v Federal Republic of Germany [1989] FCA 802 Cited cited 71×
  9. Federal Republic of Germany v Haddad (1990) 21 FCR 496 Cited cited 6×
  10. Kalamunda Meat Wholesalers Pty Ltd v Reg Russell & Sons Pty Ltd (1994) 128 ALR 149 Cited cited 3×
  11. Todhunter v United States of America (1995) 57 FCR 70 Cited cited 34×
  12. Prabowo v Republic of Indonesia (1995) 61 FCR 258 Distinguished cited 14×
  13. Public Prosecutions (Cth), Director of v Kainhofer [1995] HCA 35 Cited cited 87×
  14. McDade v United Kingdom [1999] FCA 1868 Cited cited 18×
  15. Cabal v United Mexican States (No 2) [2000] FCA 445 Cited cited 11×
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.