Hinds v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that pro se parties “assume[] the risk that [their] lack of legal knowledge 3 Unreported panel decisions of this Court may be cited for their persuasive value pursuant to Rule 126(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P 126(b
• pro se appellant “assumed the risk that her lack of legal knowledge might prove to be her undoing” and lack of knowledge of “proper appellate procedure” was not enough to permit an appeal nunc pro tunc

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).