A collateral attack is a legal claim made against a court judgment or order by a party who is not a direct party or participant in the original litigation. It is also known as an indirect attack or an attack on the judgment. In a collateral attack, a party challenges the validity of the judgment or order without having been a party to the original lawsuit.

Collateral attacks can be initiated in a variety of situations, including when a party was not properly served with legal papers, when there was a lack of jurisdiction in the original case, or when there was fraud or misconduct that tainted the original proceedings. A collateral attack can be initiated in both criminal and civil cases.

One of the most common types of collateral attacks is a habeas corpus petition. This type of petition is used by individuals who are in custody, typically in a prison or jail, and who claim that their detention is illegal because of a violation of their constitutional rights. Habeas corpus petitions are often used by individuals who have been convicted of a crime and are seeking to have their conviction overturned.

In order to initiate a collateral attack, the party must show that there was a fundamental defect in the original proceedings that resulted in a wrongful judgment or order. This may include a lack of jurisdiction, a violation of due process, or fraudulent conduct on the part of the opposing party. The party must also show that they were not able to raise the issue during the original proceedings.

Collateral attacks are generally more difficult to win than direct appeals, as the party must meet a higher burden of proof. This is because the original judgment or order is presumed to be valid, and the party must show that there was a fundamental defect that renders the judgment or order invalid.

One of the key differences between a collateral attack and a direct appeal is that a collateral attack is not limited to the issues that were raised during the original proceedings. Instead, the party can raise any issue that would render the judgment or order invalid, even if it was not raised during the original proceedings.

Another key difference between a collateral attack and a direct appeal is the time limit for filing. In most cases, direct appeals must be filed within a certain time limit after the judgment or order is entered. Collateral attacks, on the other hand, can be initiated at any time, as long as the party can show that there was a fundamental defect in the original proceedings.

Collateral attacks can be initiated in a variety of ways, depending on the jurisdiction and the type of case. In some cases, the party may file a separate lawsuit challenging the validity of the judgment or order. In other cases, the party may file a motion in the original case, asking the court to vacate the judgment or order.

If a party is successful in a collateral attack, the judgment or order will be vacated, and the case will be sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. This may include a new trial, or it may simply mean that the original judgment or order is revised or corrected.

A collateral attack is a legal claim made against a court judgment or order by a party who was not a direct party or participant in the original lawsuit. These types of attacks can be initiated in a variety of situations, including when a party was not properly served with legal papers, when there was a lack of jurisdiction in the original case, or when there was fraud or misconduct that tainted the original proceedings. Collateral attacks are generally more difficult to win than direct appeals, but they can be a powerful tool for challenging the validity of a judgment or order.