holding that an optometrist contesting the revocation of his license was not denied his procedural due process rights where he was given the opportunity for hearing but failed to request one within the deadline period
Summary of this case from In re K.A.S. v. B.A.S1994.
holding that an optometrist contesting the revocation of his license was not denied his procedural due process rights where he was given the opportunity for hearing but failed to request one within the deadline period
Summary of this case from In re K.A.S. v. B.A.Sholding that an optometrist contesting the revocation of his license was not denied his procedural due process rights where he was given the opportunity for a hearing but failed to request one within the deadline period
Summary of this case from ETU, Inc. v. Environmental Quality CommissionFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jan 1, 1994
That is not to say that an agency may not choose to afford prose litigants some latitude as to procedural…
Union Lumber Co. v. MillerBecause defendants embraced that risk by choosing to proceed pro se, the resulting error does not constitute…