Pinpoint · Judgment search

Zentai v Republic of Hungary

[2009] FCA 284

Federal Court of Australia · 31 March 2009 · Official judgment

Cited by 6 indexed judgments

All Cited 6

2009: 2 citing judgments 2010: 3 citing judgments 2021: 1 citing judgment 2009 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. Zentai v Republic of Hungary [2009] FCA 511 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 6× · judgment
  2. Zentai v Honourable Brendan O’Connor [2009] FCA 1597 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 9× · judgment
  3. Zentai v Honourable Brendan O’Connor (No 2) [2010] FCA 252 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 6× · judgment
  4. Zentai v Honourable Brendan O’Connor (No 3) [2010] FCA 691 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 13× · judgment
  5. Zentai v Honourable Brendan O'Connor (No 4) [2010] FCA 1385 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 4× · judgment
  6. Rivas v Republic of Chile [2021] FCA 693 Cited Federal Court of Australia · 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 (17)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. Minister of State for the Army v Dalziel [1944] HCA 4 Cited cited 50×
  2. Western Australia v Wilsmore [1982] HCA 19 Cited cited 6×
  3. Federal Republic of Germany v Parker (1988) 84 FCR 323 Cited cited 3×
  4. Zoeller v Republic of Germany (1989) 90 ALR 555 Not followed cited 2×
  5. Zoeller v Federal Republic of Germany [1989] FCA 802 Cited cited 71×
  6. Harris v Attorney-General (Cth) (1994) 52 FCR 386 Cited cited 75×
  7. Todhunter v United States of America (1995) 57 FCR 70 Cited cited 34×
  8. Public Prosecutions (Cth), Director of v Kainhofer [1995] HCA 35 Cited cited 87×
  9. Kainhofer v Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) (1996) 70 FCR 184 Applied or followed cited 10×
  10. Republic of South Africa v Dutton (1997) 147 ALR 310 Cited cited 3×
  11. Papazoglou v Republic of the Philippines (1997) 74 FCR 108 Applied or followed cited 26×
  12. Singh v USA (1997) 77 FCR 280 Cited
  13. Republic of South Africa v Dutton, Edward Isaac & Anor [1997] FCA 708 Cited cited 25×
  14. Bennett v United Kingdom (2001) 179 ALR 113 Applied or followed cited 3×
  15. Oates v Attorney-General [2002] FCAFC 80 ; [2002] FCAFC 80 Cited cited 3×
  16. Brock v Minister for Justice and Customs [2007] FCA 2091 Cited cited 10×
  17. Snedden v Republic of Croatia [2009] FCA 30 Cited cited 9×
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.