Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton · ¶19

Coney Island disclaims any such argument, and we cannot divine any principle requiring courts to keep their doors perpetually open to allegations of voidness. Giving a party a “reasonable” time to seek relief from an allegedly void judgment may well be all that due process demands. By contrast, the argument that a party may allege voidness at any time, if taken to its logical conclusion, would have extreme implications. For example, if a federal district court erroneously concluded that it possessed subject-matter jurisdiction and proceeded to enter a judgment, the adversely affected party could wait as long as it wanted before filing a notice of appeal. But see Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(1). Similarly, if a federal court of appeals erroneously asserted subjectmatter jurisdiction, the adversely affected party would not be required to comply with the deadline for filing a petition for a…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.