Pinpoint · Judgment search

Rasick v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs

[2002] FCA 975

Federal Court of Australia · 7 August 2002 · 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 (12)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155 Cited cited 286×
  2. Luu v Renevier [1989] FCA 518 Cited cited 156×
  3. Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh [1995] HCA 20 Applied or followed cited 502×
  4. Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Guo Wei Rong [1997] HCA 22 Applied or followed cited 776×
  5. Yilan v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 854 Applied or followed cited 25×
  6. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu [1999] HCA 21 Applied or followed cited 971×
  7. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Anthonypillai [2001] FCA 274 Applied or followed cited 128×
  8. Pollocks v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 689 Applied or followed cited 2×
  9. Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Al-Miahi [2001] FCA 744 Applied or followed cited 88×
  10. Zyfi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 978 Applied or followed cited 2×
  11. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 Cited cited 1,750×
  12. Yakubu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 241 Applied or followed cited 2×
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.