Umphres (P) was formerly a Shell (D) retailer. P filed suit against D for an alleged conspiracy to fix prices in violation of antitrust laws. D commenced P's deposition and began interrogating P with regard to the alleged conspiracy. P's counsel advised him not to answer any questions about conspiracy. D claims that he is entitled to get to the facts alleged and D wants to shield his client from making conclusions about the law involved. D asked his question, and P's attorney instructed him not to answer. The question seemed to call for P to make a conclusion as to the legal meaning of conspiracy. D filed a motion to compel an answer.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.