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

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

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.

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

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