I didn't explain it very well. Let me rephrase:
I have a report with 8 subreports. I have a driver stored procedure that gets all the records those subreports will need. The first 3 subreports are summary reports, they use all records that the driver proc brings back. They calculate dollar and case summaries (I work for a medical management company) and bring them back in one report, esentially one record. The next 5 subreports make up the detail cases of this report. However, not all of the cases that the driver proc pulls back are used. Some of them are not used by the subreports because they might fall out of the date range of the user entered date period. They were pulled in the first place because they are part of the user entered Year To Date period and that is only used in the first three subreports to show case/dollar summaries.
So if there is a case that doesn't need to be shown, it does not show, but since the driver proc (which drives the whole report and pulls back all cases regardless if they will be used in the last 5 subreports) still has those records, it leaves the placeholder for the detail lines, thus screwing up the formatting. Currently I have 2 or 3 cases per page, depending on if they are the start of a new grouping of cases. But when I have a supressed case, the placeholder for those detail lines shifts things. I have uploaded a screen shot here:
Notice the A, B, and C detail lines that are not being suppressed. I need those to go away and not print, keeping things neat and clean. Now in the Supress Formula for each section within the subreport and each subreport in the main report, I am checking a Supress Formula Field. It looks like this:
isnull(count({drvReportCMActivityDetail;1.CaseDefnID})) or
count({drvReportCMActivityDetail;1.CaseDefnID}) = 0
So if there is no CaseDefnID, supress the section. However, now that I think about it, there IS a CaseDefnID returned, even though the Subreport might not be using it. I might have to query on something else in that Supress formula.
Any ideas? Sorry for the long drawn out response, I wanted it to be clear, unlike my first write up.