collateral attack on a judgment

• Lingo v. State, (Ohio 2012)

Judicial acts committed in “excess of jurisdiction” are voidable; class action constituted impermissible collateral attack on municipal court judgments; judgment of conviction, including court costs, is a final appealable order; res judicata; subject matter jurisdiction.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• In re T.D., (Ohio 2011)

Appellate review – App.R. 26(A) – Motion for reconsideration – Juvenile sex offender's motion for reconsideration is denied where the juvenile brought the appellate court's attention to a potential error in its prior decision, but the disposition of the appeal would not change. The error would still amount to an impermissible collateral attack on a voidable judgment, which the appellate court is not authorized to entertain.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Burge v. Ohio Atty. Gen., (Ohio 2011)

Dismissal of the declaratory judgment action was proper because it constituted an impermissible collateral attack on an order issued by the trial court in a criminal case. Judgment affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Wall v. Kholi, 562 U.S. (2011)

... forState post-conviction or other collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment or c... of the related phrase "collateral attack"points in the same direction. A "collateral attack...

• U.S. Supreme Court

• In re T.D., (Ohio 2010)

Infants; Juvenile sex offender classification; Juvenile sex offender registrant; Timing; R.C. 2152.83; Subject matter jurisdiction; Jurisdiction over the particular case; Lack of jurisdiction; Error in the exercise of jurisdiction; Collateral attack; Res judicata; Waiver – The juvenile court erred in classifying appellant as a Tier III juvenile sex offender 19 months before he was actually released a secure facility. Nonetheless, appellant's motion to vacate his classification amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the voidable judgment.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• JGR, Inc. v. Thomasville Furniture Industries, (6th Cir. 2012)

... asks us to vacate the district court's judgment, entered pursuant to a stipulation by the parties,... it would amount to "an impermissible collateral attack" on Thomasville's 1999 judgment "and/or is ...

• Federal Circuits

• In re Prenzlin, (Ohio 2002)

Contempt; Suspension of Child Support Obligation; CSEA; Collateral attack on judgment; res judicata

• Ohio Supreme Court

• State v. Ennis, (Ohio 2007)

Failure to raise issue under Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403, at sentencing forfeits that issue, whether for purposes of direct appellate review or for purposes of a subsequent collateral attack on the judgment. State v. Payne, 114 Ohio St.3d 502, 2007-Ohio-4642 followed. Application of severance remedy provided for in State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-856, does not violate ex post facto clause in United States Constitution. State v. Smith, 2006-Ohio-4405, Montgomery App. No. 21004, approved and followed. Order denying motion for appointment of counsel for re-sentencing Affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• In re Kilburn, (Ohio 2006)

Where a parent enters an appearance in a foreign state and contests issues of subject-matter jurisdiction, child custody and child support on their merits, without challenging that state’s exercising of personal jurisdiction over him, and those issues are finally adjudicated in that state, he may not subsequently assert a collateral attack in this state, based upon a claimed lack of personal jurisdiction in the rendering state, when an attempt is made to register the foreign state’s judgment in this state for enforcement purposes. Foreign state’s judgment that it had subject-matter jurisdiction is not clearly erroneous. Trial court did not err in denying the parent’s motion to dismiss based upon the collateral attack on the foreign state’s judgment. Affirmed.

• Ohio Supreme Court

• Leal Garcia v. Texas, (2011)

...v. U. S.),2004 I. C. J. 12 (Judgment of Mar. 31), in which theInternational Court... that might someday authorize a collateral attack on that judgment. The United States does no...

• U.S. Supreme Court