Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions

Start My FREE 7-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Property Keyed to French

View this case in different Casebooks

Property Law Keyed to Cribbet Property Law Keyed to Dukeminier Property Law Keyed to Singer Torts Keyed to Epstein Health Law Keyed to Furrow Property Keyed to Saxer Property Keyed to Sprankling Property Keyed to Merrill

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Citation:

51 Cal. 3d 120, 793 P.2d 479 (1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 936 (1991)

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

Mr. Moore was diagnosed with hairy-cell leukemia, and was treated by Dr. Golde. As part of his treatment, Mr. Moore had lots of biological material removed, including cells, blood, and, eventually, his spleen. Unbeknownst to Mr. Moore, biological material from a patient with his condition was incredibly valuable for research. Dr. Golde and the other defendants, without Mr. Moore’s knowledge or consent, used the materials they obtained from his treatment to conduct research, and, ultimately, patented a new cell line. This cell line made Dr. Golde and the other defendants hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Moore found out and sued.

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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

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.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - The majority in Moore v. Regents implicitly redefined traditional property concepts by distinguishing between excised biological materials and chattel. Which of the following best describes the jurisprudential anomaly that this redefinition creates?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The ruling selectively denies the application of the law of accession, allowing researchers to derive commercial value from Moore’s cells while rejecting his claim to ownership over the same transformed material.

Incorrect. The law of accession applies when someone transforms another’s raw material into something new, but the Court denied Moore’s original ownership, making accession irrelevant.

(B) The decision contradicts res nullius doctrine, since the Court denies individual ownership over removed biological materials but simultaneously allows corporations to assert intellectual property rights over the same substances.

Incorrect. Res nullius applies to unowned things (like wild animals), but Moore’s cells were not treated as such; instead, they were categorized as non-property in his hands and intellectual property in the hands of researchers.

(C) The Court effectively undermines the common law principle of nemo dat quod non habet, permitting researchers to obtain legal title to Moore’s cells despite the original possessor (Moore) never having such a right.

Correct! The nemo dat quod non habet principle states that one cannot transfer better title than one possesses. By holding that Moore never had a property interest in his cells, yet allowing researchers to claim proprietary rights over them through patents, the Court created a fundamental inconsistency in the application of property law.

(D) The ruling creates a doctrinal conflict with the law of bailments, as Moore involuntarily transferred possession of his biological materials but was denied the standard legal remedies for unauthorized use.

Incorrect. Bailment law requires an agreement to hold property for another, but Moore was unaware his materials were being retained, negating the element of voluntary entrustment.

Q.2 - Justice Arabian, in his concurrence, warned against recognizing Moore’s claim on the grounds that it could lead to commercial markets in human body parts. Which of the following best exposes the legal and logical inconsistency in this argument?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The decision paradoxically permits the commodification of human biological materials in the hands of researchers while rejecting the notion that Moore had a cognizable ownership interest in those same materials.

Correct! Justice Arabian’s concurrence contradicts itself by condemning property claims over human biological materials while simultaneously allowing corporations to profit from those same materials. This creates an asymmetrical legal regime where individuals cannot claim rights over their own bodies, but third parties can.

(B) The concurrence misinterprets the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), which prohibits compensation for organ donation but does not extend to excised cells used in medical research.

Incorrect. NOTA does prohibit compensation for organ donations, but Moore’s case involves cells—not organs—so Arabian’s concern about a commercial market for body parts is a misapplication of NOTA’s intent.

(C) Arabian’s argument fails under Rawlsian distributive justice principles, as it allows wealth maximization by institutional actors at the expense of vulnerable individuals like Moore.

Incorrect. While Rawlsian principles could apply, the Court did not frame its decision in terms of distributive justice, making this argument less legally relevant than a direct contradiction in commodification logic.

(D) The reasoning contradicts the “bundle of rights” approach to property law, since it denies Moore’s ability to exclude others from using his excised cells while granting researchers full alienability rights over them.

Incorrect. The bundle of rights framework does highlight inconsistencies, but Arabian’s argument focused on economic consequences rather than alienability restrictions, making this answer secondary to A.

Q.3 - The Moore decision has been criticized for failing to account for the intersection of property law and fiduciary duty. From a strict legal standpoint, which of the following represents the most precise way the Court could have reconciled these doctrines?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) By applying the constructive trust doctrine, requiring that any profits derived from Moore’s cells be held in trust for his benefit due to the physician’s breach of fiduciary duty.

Incorrect. A constructive trust could have been an option, but it is typically used when a party wrongfully retains another’s property, which was not the central issue in Moore.

(B) By recognizing an equitable lien over the commercialized cell line, granting Moore a proportional financial interest without granting him full ownership over his excised cells.

Correct! An equitable lien would have been the most precise legal remedy, as it allows Moore to receive financial compensation for the cell line without disrupting the commercialization of biomedical research. This approach avoids creating full ownership rights over excised biological materials while preventing unjust enrichment.

(C) By invoking quasi-contract principles, requiring restitution for unjust enrichment without formally extending property rights to Moore’s biological materials.

Incorrect. Quasi-contract restitution would grant Moore monetary compensation, but it lacks the precise proportional claim over the cell line’s profits that an equitable lien provides.

(D) By adopting a fiduciary estoppel framework, preventing physicians from denying Moore’s rights over his cells after inducing him to trust their professional judgment.

Incorrect. Fiduciary estoppel is not a recognized doctrine in property law and would have required a major doctrinal expansion beyond existing fiduciary principles.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

^™ CaseCast

Todd Berman

ProfessorTodd Berman

CaseCast™ "What you need to know"

CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

To continue listening to this CaseCast™ please Subscribe

Topic Video

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

2m 30s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Refresher Course

Trespass to Chattels and Conversion

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Moore v. Regents of the University of California