Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Amador v. Lea's Auto Sales & Leasing, Inc., 916 S.W.2d 845 (1996)

Citation
Amador v. Lea's Auto Sales & Leasing, Inc., 916 S.W.2d 845 (1996)
Parent Document
Amador v. Lea's Auto Sales & Leasing, Inc., 916 S.W.2d 845 (1996)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1996-02-01

Other Sections in This Document (115)

Full Text

585 chars
Defendant contends that plaintiffs were required to make a specific finding that Dr. Downs was not available on the day the deposition was actually offered into evidence, December 20, 1994. Plaintiffs, however, contend that Dr. Downs’ statement in her deposition that patients would be “put off a month” if she were to appear in person, creates a clear inference that Dr. Downs had patients scheduled well past December 20, 1995, the day her testimony was presented by videotape and therefore, the requirements of Rule 57.07 have been satisfied. We agree. Estate of Helmich v. O’Toole,