T. M. v. University of Md. Medical System Corporation · ¶93

Consider just a few of the differences. An appeal “removes the record into the supervising tribunal.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 410 (1821). A collateral attack does not. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 3, 7. On appeal, new evidence is generally unwelcome. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 10; United States v. Coe, 155 U. S. 76, 83–84 (1894). In a collateral attack, new evidence is fair game. See, e.g., Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 26. Most obviously, preclusion does not apply on appeal. This Court is not barred from considering an issue just because the state high court already decided it— reconsidering the state court’s judgment is the whole point. Not so with a collateral attack; preclusion restrains district courts from simply redoing the state court’s work. See, e.g., Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, 474 U. S. 518, 523 (1986). Finally, while this Court can vacate or reverse the judgment…

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