here. We fail to see how Petitioner’s statutory right to seek review of the City’s land use decision should be defeated by the subsequent execution of a private settlement agreement and the entry of a stipulated order of dismissal. The Dismissal Based Upon the Settlement Agreement is Not an Order Entitled to Preclusive Effect {9} The City and Wal-Mart contend that Petitioner’s appeal should be regarded as an impermissible col 122 (1918) (observing that judgments evidenced by patents are immune from collateral attack); VanderVossen v. City of Espanola, 2001-NMCA-016, ¶¶ 17-21, 130 N.M. 287, 24 P.3d 319 (applying the bar against collateral attacks in regard to a municipal authority’s final zoning decision); Sanders v. Estate of Sanders, 122 N.M. 468, 469, 927 P.2d 23, 24 (Ct.App.1996) (<HOLDING>); Royal Int’l Optical Co. v. Tex. State Optical
recognizing collateral attack on void order holding that an attempt to set aside a divorce decree constituted an impermissible collateral attack recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict holding that insofar as the university actions were taken in an attempt to comply with the requirements of title ix plaintiffs attack on those actions is merely a collateral attack on the statute and regulations and is therefore impermissible holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment