development of a filling station at the Sam’s Club location. This constitutes a statutorily authorized, direct attack on a land use decision by the City under Section 31-2-9. See also § 3-19-8; § 3-21-9; § 39-3-1.1 (providing for an appeal to the district court by any person in interest dissatisfied with an order or determination of a planning commission after review of the order or determination by the governing body of the municipality). Although the City, Wal-Mart, and the dissent assert that Petitioner was required to intervene in the litigation between them in order to protect his right to challenge the development, they cite no New Mexico authority to support this position, and we decline any invitation to create such author o., 92 N.M. 237, 241, 586 P.2d 318, 322 (Ct.App.1978) (<HOLDING>). It has no application to contractual
holding that a judgment establishing a partys exclusive light to use a trade name was not subject to collateral attack holding that dormant judgment is voidable and therefore not subject to collateral attack recognizing collateral attack on void order holding that prior ro decision that had not become final was not subject to cue collateral attack holding that a judgment as to the title in a prior litigation was not subject to collateral attack