Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Sprankling
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
Citation:793 P.2d 479 (1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 936 (1991).
CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
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. Review the Facts of this case here:
John Moore (the plaintiff) sought medical treatment for hairy cell leukemia at the UCLA Medical Center (one of the defendants). Dr. Golde (another defendant) withdrew large amounts of blood, his spleen, bone marrow aspirate, and other bodily tissues from the plaintiff for testing and treatment. The defendants knew the plaintiff’s tissues were unique and extremely valuable, but they did not inform the plaintiff of this or that they would be using his tissues for research before they obtained his consent for removal. The defendants used genetic engineering to develop a cell line from the plaintiff’s cells (which they named the “Mo cell line”), got a patent for it, and entered into several commercial agreements to rights for the cell line and its related products. The estimated market value for these products is $3 billion.
- 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.