Pinpoint · Judgment search

Leota v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

[2020] FCA 1120

Federal Court of Australia · 5 August 2020 · Official judgment

Cited by 11 indexed judgments

All Cited 11

2021: 4 citing judgments 2022: 5 citing judgments 2023: 1 citing judgment 2024: 1 citing judgment 2020 2022 2024 2026
citing judgments per year of which distinguished, doubted, not followed or overruled · line marks the decision

Sort: Oldest first Newest first Most cited

  1. Cai v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 90 Cited Federal Court of Australia · cited 1× · judgment
  2. Tohi v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 125 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 57× · judgment
  3. Parmar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1294 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  4. ETP19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1309 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  5. Djokovic v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 3 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 64× · judgment
  6. CKT16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 230 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  7. FGBP v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 253 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  8. AZAFF v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 176 Cited Federal Court of Australia (Full Court) · cited 4× · judgment
  9. Sanjeevaraj v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 1369 Cited Federal Court of Australia · judgment
  10. Chief Health Officer, NSW Health v FRC (application for continuation of public health order) (No 2) [2023] NSWCATAD 332 Cited NCAT Administrative and Equal Opportunity · judgment
  11. AZX21 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FCA 1379 Cited Federal Court of Australia · 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 (35)

Earliest first, with how this judgment treated each.

  1. O'Brien v Komesaroff [1982] HCA 33 Cited cited 408×
  2. Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40 Cited cited 2,191×
  3. Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Minister for v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 Cited cited 2,712×
  4. Tien, William & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1998] FCA 1552 Cited cited 14×
  5. Newall v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1624 Cited cited 7×
  6. Xie v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 230 Cited cited 8×
  7. Soegianto v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1612 Cited cited 6×
  8. Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 Cited cited 227×
  9. El Ess v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1038 Cited cited 11×
  10. VUAX v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 158 Cited cited 600×
  11. NAJT v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 Cited cited 212×
  12. Borbil v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 24 Cited
  13. Lafu v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCAFC 140 Cited cited 78×
  14. NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 38 Cited cited 154×
  15. AAM15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 804 Cited cited 80×
  16. COT15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 1) [2015] FCAFC 190 Cited cited 16×
  17. SZWCO v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 51 Cited cited 59×
  18. MZABP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 110 Cited cited 139×
  19. Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 177 Cited cited 51×
  20. Gong v MIBP [2016] FCCA 561 Cited cited 3×
  21. Carrascalao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 107 Cited cited 330×
  22. Maharjan v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 213 Cited cited 33×
  23. Murad v Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 73 Cited cited 81×
  24. BCR16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 96 Cited cited 129×
  25. Queen v Roe [2017] NTCCA 7 Cited
  26. BOZ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 418 Cited cited 15×
  27. EHF17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 1681 Cited cited 39×
  28. Han v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 331 Cited cited 70×
  29. CHZ19 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 914 Cited cited 14×
  30. Navoto v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 135 Cited cited 116×
  31. Minister for Home Affairs v Omar [2019] FCAFC 188 Cited cited 229×
  32. Tsvetnenko v United States of America [2019] FCAFC 74 Cited cited 52×
  33. Leota v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 1798 Cited
  34. AWV18 v Minister for Home Affairs (No 3) [2020] FCA 365 Cited cited 6×
  35. Ali v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 109 Cited cited 75×
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.