collateral attack
Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court
Definitions from Case Law
From 308 U.S. 371 - Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank · 1940Most cited · 2,550 citing opinions
The lower federal courts are all courts of limited jurisdiction, that is, with only the jurisdiction which Congress has prescribed. But none the less they are courts with authority, when parties are brought before them in accordance with the requirements of due process, to determine whether or not they have jurisdiction to entertain the cause and for this purpose to construe and apply the statute under which they are asked to act. Their determinations of such questions, while open to direct review, may not be assailed collaterally.
How the Supreme Court has restated “collateral attack”
Each Supreme Court definition of “collateral attack,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.
How often courts cite the cases defining “collateral attack”
Court decisions citing the 4 opinions that defined “collateral attack” — 3,593 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.
All 4 definitions, chronological · 1829–1940
- ORIGINAL
The general and well settled rule of law in such cases is, that when the proceedings are collaterally drawn in question, and it appears upon the face of them, that the subject matter was within the jurisdiction of the court, they are voidable only. The errors and irregularities, if any exist, are to be corrected by some direct proceeding, either before the same court, to set them aside, or in an appellate court. If there is a total want of jurisdiction, the proceedings are void and a mere nullity, and confer no right, and afford no justification, and may be rejected when collaterally drawn in question.
judicial proceedings with jurisdiction
The rule is as applicable to inferior and special tribunals as it is to those of superior or general authority, that where they have once acquired jurisdiction their subsequent proceedings cannot be collaterally questioned for mere error or irregularity.
inferior tribunals
they chose to make the objections in a distinct receivership suit of their own, not on any recognized equitable ground, such as fraud, imposition, or mistake, but on the ground of alleged error. In this they were engaged in a collateral attack