SmartBrief
Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
Citation:
793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990)ProfessorTodd Berman
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Facts
Moore, the Plaintiff, sought treatment for a rare type of blood cancer at UCLA Medical Center. Dr. Golde, a primary Defendant, was his attending physician at the hospital. In connection with Moore’s cancer treatment, Dr. Golde performed an extensive number of procedures and extracted a significant amount of Moore’s cells. While Moore was aware that these procedures were done in connection with his cancer treatment, he was unaware that further research was being conducted on his cells with an eye toward pecuniary gain. Around the time this case was filed, biotechnology was a new, up and coming industry that had already proven itself to aid in advancing medical research and treatment. From the outset of the physician-patient relationship, Dr. Golde was aware that access to cells like Moore’s could be lucrative both financially and professionally. Moore continued to return to the hospital several times over a period of seven years at the insistence of Dr. Golde, who claimed that such visits were necessary and required for his health and well-being. In fact, throughout that period of time, the Defendants were involved in a number of activities unbeknownst to Moore. Specifically, that Defendants were harvesting Moore’s cells for research purposes with the express intent of developing a patent for commercial use. Indeed, Dr. Golde was ultimately successful in establishing a proprietary cell line derived from Moore’s cells that had potential therapeutic applications. In 1980, the Regents applied for a patent on the proprietary cell line. The patent issues in 1984, naming Golde as one of the inventors and the Regents as assignee of the patent. Dr. Golde and Regents would share in any royalties or profits arising out of the patent. However, Moore would receive nothing. Based upon these facts, Moore brought a claim for conversion of his cells against the Defendants. Moore contended that he continued to own his cells following their removal from his body, at least for the purpose of directing their use.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.
Topic Resources
Topic Outline
Introduction to Property: The Big Picture