Case Name: Thomas DEDMAN, Appellant, v. ALBINA FUEL COMPANY, Albina Fuel Company, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust (Plan), Neal L. Arnston, Clifford L. Arnston and John Does 1 through 5 as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Plan, Respondents
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1992-04-22
Citations: 112 Or. App. 632
Docket Number: 9007-04187; CA A69329
Parties: Thomas DEDMAN, Appellant, v. ALBINA FUEL COMPANY, Albina Fuel Company, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust (Plan), Neal L. Arnston, Clifford L. Arnston and John Does 1 through 5 as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Plan, Respondents.
Judges: Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 112
Pages: 632–633

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted March 5,
affirmed April 22,
reconsideration denied June 24, petition for review denied August 25, 1992 (314 Or 175)
Thomas DEDMAN, Appellant, v. ALBINA FUEL COMPANY, Albina Fuel Company, Inc. Profit Sharing Trust (Plan), Neal L. Arnston, Clifford L. Arnston and John Does 1 through 5 as Trustees and Fiduciaries of the Plan, Respondents.
(9007-04187; CA A69329)
829 P2d 716
William P. Horton, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the opening brief was Parks, Allen, Livingston & Greif, Portland, and with him on the reply brief was Leo & Horton, Portland.
Ted E. Runstein, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Nolan Shishido and Kell, Alterman & Runstein, Portland.
Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff assigns error to the granting of defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v., one of the grounds for which was that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The focus of plaintiffs argument on appeal is that there was supporting evidence. Plaintiffs designation of record does not include any part of the trial testimony or other evidence, except for selected exhibits. The record before us is not sufficient for us to review the assignment. Universal Ideas Corp. v. Esty, 84 Or App 541, 734 P2d 408 (1987).
Affirmed.