concluding that appellants' argument that a deposition was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule was not adequately preserved, in part, because "the trial court had no opportunity to explore or evaluate the factual predicate to appellants' arguments on appeal — that [the declarant] was unavailable for live testimony"
Summary of this case from State v. SimmonsJune 4, 2002
June 4, 2002
concluding that appellants' argument that a deposition was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule was not adequately preserved, in part, because "the trial court had no opportunity to explore or evaluate the factual predicate to appellants' arguments on appeal — that [the declarant] was unavailable for live testimony"
Summary of this case from State v. SimmonsFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Jun 4, 2002
In our last opinion, we affirmed the trial court's judgment, based on the jury's verdict, that awarded…
Williams v. Philip Morris IncorporatedWaddill, 190 Or App. at 178-79. We originally affirmed, Waddill v. Anchor Hocking, Inc., 175 Or. App. 294, 27…