Moore v. The Regents of University of California Supreme Ct of CA- 1990 Facts. 3 RISK-Issues in Health & Safety 219 [Summer 1992] D put the work in (labor theory), so he got the patent. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. There are many cases in which the law forbids the exercise of certain rights over certain forms of property. Citation 22 Ill.51 Cal.3d 120, 271 Cal.Rptr. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. Put new text under old text. Lymphokines have the same molecular structure and function in every human being. Moore v. Regents of the University of California. Start studying Property Pt.1 - Moore v Regents of the University of California. First, no reported judicial decision supports Moore's claim, either directly or by close analogy. John Moore sought treatment from UCLA Medical Center (defendant) for hairy-cell leukemia. Plaintiff Moore was a cancer patient at U.C.L.A. Moore v Regents of the University of California Moore (Plaintiff) sought treatment for hairy-cell leukemia at Regents (Defendants). Bibliographic Citation. The superior court sustained all defendants' demurrers to the third amended complaint, and the Court o… Dissent. “Owning Our Bodies: An Examination of Property Law and Biotechnology”. After they removed his spleen doctors (Defendants) found out his cells were unique and had a great commercial value. The argument that this is a decision for the legislature is crap; the whole point of having common law is that it can morph to changing needs. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. Filed on July 9, 1990, it dealt with the issue of property rights to one's own cells taken in samples by doctors or researchers. CitationMoore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal. address. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Traditional Objects And Classifications Of Property, Improving Another's Property By Mistake (Accession), A Brief Look At The Historical Development Of Estates Doctrine, Non-Freehold Estates: Landlord And Tenant, Interests In Land Of Another And In Natural Resources Affecting Another's Land, Introduction To The Traditional Land Use Controls, Easements,Covenants,Servitudes and Related Interests, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 22 Ill.51 Cal.3d 120, 271 Cal.Rptr. 4 Moore v Regents of the University of California 793 P. 2d at 481(1990). I use a nearly full-text version of Moore v. Regents of the University of California, as the first case in Property and find it to be a very useful tool for introducing not only a number of key property law concepts but also a number of concepts (not all of which directly relate to property) that are revisited throughout the curriculum, as well as contrasting the more dynamic body … Rptr. On 9 July 1990, inMoore v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court of California ruled in a four-to-three decision that individuals do not have rights to a share in profits earned from research performed on their bodily materials. The Plaintiff wishes to have a legally recognized right to sell portions of his body for profit, and such a result is immoral. 1995. Rptr. On 9 July 1990, in Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court of California ruled in a four-to-three decision that individuals do not have rights to a share in profits earned from research performed on their bodily materials. This Comment examines and rejects the property law approach to this issue. California. Moore claimed the modified tissue to be his own property and sued to recover deserved profits. 1 Moore v. Regents, U. California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. The disclosure part of the holding upholds the desired policy without infringing on socially useful research. Medical Center where his doctor, over a period of several years, removed blood and other bodily fluids from Plaintiff which eventually became a “cell line” and was patented for commercial use, which … Moore did not expect to retain possession of his cells following conversion, so he must have an ownership interest in them. The patented cell line is factually and legally distinct from the cells taken from Moore's body. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Moore v. Regents of the University of California (51 Cal. CitationMoore v. Regents of University of California, 51 Cal. On conversion issue, Moore argues that he continued to own his cells following their removal from his body, at least for the purpose of directing their use. Held. The Court noted a California statute which ordered that any materials removed from patients be disposed of in a safe matter. 5 See ibid at 479 6 See ibid at 479 7 See Gold, Richard. D (Doctors) used P's cells to create a cell line and made lots of money off of it. Supreme Ct of CA holds that there is a requirement for disclosure of physicians' research interest, but there are no property-related claims. Moore sued the university for violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Family Rights Act. Patentability has significantly reduced the free access of researchers to new cell lines and their products. Moore sued Defendant for claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code, 1 §§ 12900–12966) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) (§§ 12945.1, 12945.2). 32: 1203(1990). Design by Free CSS Templates. Next, court addresses whether conversion liability should be extended and answers in the negative. Rptr. July 9, 1990) Brief Fact Summary. 1990), Supreme Court of California, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. This Comment examines and rejects the property law approach to this issue. MOORE V. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff Moore was a cancer patient at U.C.L.A. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription, within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Subsequently, a cell line was developed from Moore's tissues that offered enormous therapeutic value. This case is an example of the cases which arise when new technologies force courts to re-examine historical principles. JOHN MOORE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Repondents. Abstract. A tort of conversion occurs when personal property of one person is interfered with by another with regard to possessory or ownership interests. They can be used for research, but if they are not used for research they must be discarded. 3d 120; 271 Cal. 3d 120, 271 Cal. Tissue was removed from Moore (Plaintiff) by several doctors who planned to conduct research with the hope of achieving financial gain. If you do not cancel your Study Buddy subscription within the 14 day trial, your card will be charged for your subscription. Concurrence. One illustrative case is Moore v. Regents of the University of California, in which a patient sued his doctor for conversion of his spleen which had been removed for therapeutic purposes. P was a patient at UCLA Medical Center. C513755, Warren H. Deering and John L. Cole, Judges.) Regents of the University of California • Moore went to UCLA Med Center for treatment after learning he had hairy cell leukemia. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial. 3d 120, 271 Cal. questions in the case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California.' 146, 793 P.2d 479, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (1990). Rptr. JOHN MOORE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Repondents. C513755, Warren H. Deering and John L. Cole, Judges.) 146, 793 P.2d 479, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 (1990) Brief Fact Summary. Moore's complaint states a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent, but not conversion. The doctor later used the spleen to develop a patented and profitable cell-line. Filed on July 9, 1990, it dealt with the issue of property rights to one's own cells taken in samples by doctors or researchers. He had hairy-cell leukemia and had to get his spleen removed. Doctors applied for patents on the cell line and entered into contracts for its commercial exploitation. He should have given Moore the choice, but as a property issue the Doc is in the clear. disputes over the ownership of cell lines 338 a. cases prior to moore 338 b. facts and procedural history of moore 339 iv. Moore began working in UCSD's Marketing and Communications Department (the Department) in 2008. The doctor later used the spleen to develop a patented and profitable cell-line. The plaintiff in Moore alleged that he had a property interest in his excised spleen and tissue which defendants had used in commercially profitable medical research.4 The California I. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), New Developments in videos, thousands of real exam questions, and much more. The plaintiff in Moore alleged that he had a property interest in his excised spleen and tissue which defendants had used in commercially profitable medical research.4 The California I. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), New Developments in Further, that as the result of the alleged conversion, Plaintiff asserts a right to a portion of any profit resulting from the use of the excised material. His attending physician, Dr. David Golde, recommended removal of Moore’s spleen for therapeutic purposes. It is not like a name or a face, since they are not unique to Moore. INTRODUCTION The decision of the California Supreme Court in Moore v Regents of the University of California and ors2 has brought the question of whether the human body and its tissue can, or ought to be considered property, from an era of grave robbers into the hospitals and laboratories of the late twentieth century. Ms. Schmidt holds a B.A. Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4. Jul 9, 1990.] edented decision declaring human tissue2 to be property of the person from whom it is removed. Supreme Court of California. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. P's claim of ownership is also invalid because CA statutory law drastically limits a patient's control over excised cells for public health reasons. In its decision, the Supreme Court of California ruled that cancer patient John L. Moore did not have personal property rights to samples or fluids that his physicians … He was treated and, unbeknownst to him, his doctor (Golde) established a cell line from Moore's T lymphocytes, got a patent on it, and sold it to make quite a bit of money. 1990). The trial court dismissed Moore's case because it failed to set forth a proper claim at law. Second, California statutory law drastically limits any continuing interest of a patient in excised cells. In Moore v. Regents of the University of California,3 the court held that John Moore, a patient at the UCLA Medical Center, had a cognizable action for conversion of … It is the inventive effort that patent law rewards with a patent, not just the discovery of a naturally occurring raw material. Therefore, application of the law of conversion in this case will not hinder research by restricted access. 146; 793 P.2d 479) was a landmark Supreme Court of California decision filed on July 9, 1990 which dealt with the issue of property rights in one's own body parts.John Moore underwent treatment for hairy cell leukemia at the UCLA Medical Center under the supervision of Dr. David W. Golde. Rptr, at 495. The Plaintiff’s body is unique and based upon ethical and equitable concerns the Plaintiff should have a proprietary interest in the cells and tissue of his body. Discussion. 146, 1990 Cal. On 9 July 1990, in Moore v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court of California ruled in a four-to-three decision that individuals do not have rights to a share in profits earned from research performed on their bodily materials. Moore v. Regents of the University of California (51 Cal. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). All rights reserved. Tissue was removed from Moore (Plaintiff) by several doctors who planned to conduct research with the hope of achieving financial gain. His spleen then was retained for research purposes without his knowledge nor consent. Subsequently, a cell line was developed from Moore's tissues that offered enormous therapeutic value. California. In early September 2010, Moore was … In addition, commercial exploitation is not scientific use, so it shouldn't be covered by the statute permitting scientific use. We granted review in this case to determine whether plaintiff has stated a cause of action against his physician and other defendants for using his cells in potentially lucrative medical research without his permission. Plaintiff Deborah Moore appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant The Regents of the University of California (Defendant). Rptr. 1. San Diego Law Review. To establish  conversion, P must establish actual interference with ownership or right of possession. This makes it difficult to call P's rights property rights. Northwest Univ Law Rev. Abstract. However, this is not property law, and a conversion claim must be based on property law. Plaintiff Deborah Moore appealed a judgment entered in favor of defendant The Regents of the University of California. Court of Appeal. Moore filed a thirteen-count lawsuit. No court has ever upheld conversion liability for this. The Court notes that historically the tort of conversion arose to settle disputes between losers and finders. It is inequitable and immoral that P should not be compensated when without Moore's cells the profitable cell line would have never been created. Moore v. Regents of the University of California. 3d 120; 271 Cal. Golde and UCLA researcher Shirley Quan planned to use Moore’s spleen tissue—which was “o… The defendants made a significant amount of money from the cell line. Division 4. Did the Plaintiff retain an ownership interest in the excised cells and matter such that he may prosecute the Defendants for conversion? Moore v. Regents of the University of California: expanded disclosure, limited property rights. Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™. Second Appellate District. Moore v. Regents of the University of California. There are not property rights for ethical, religious etc reasons; The court feared that because conversion is a strict liability tort, it may open up too many law suits-- Download Moore v Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal 3d 120 as PDF--Save this case Please check your email and confirm your registration. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. the technology 335 iii. . No. Non-Traditional Objects And Classifications Of Property, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law. Third, the subject matters of the Regents' patent--the patented cell line and the products derived from it-- cannot be Moore's property. Moore relies on privacy rights and unwanted publicity. Thus, the Court declined to extend conversion liability in this type of suit. July 9, 1990) Brief Fact Summary. The Court finds that the cell line is factually and legally distinct from any part of materials removed from Plaintiff’s body. 1988 Jul 21;249:494-540. Even if it did include commercial use, it does not follow that P does not have a property right for purposes of conversion. P was a patient at UCLA Medical Center. Court discusses disclosure issue- says doctor was required to disclose research interests. Mr. Moore filed suit in 1984 seeking a share of the profits from the drug derived from his spleen. He had hairy-cell leukemia and had to get his spleen removed. However, the subject matter of the patent, the cell line, cannot be Moore's property. California. A link to your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Copyright (c) 2009 Onelbriefs.com. She is a J. D. candidate at FPLC concentrating in intellectual property law. Can there be a property right claim to bodily fluids and tissues that have been removed from the body? 3 See Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 249 Cal. Majority says P did not retain ownership interest in his cells after removal. . Medical Center where his doctor, over a period of several years, removed blood and other bodily fluids from Plaintiff which eventually became a “cell line” and was patented for commercial use, which aggrieved Plaintiff. MOORE V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA In Moore v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaJ the California Court of Appeals was one of the few courts in recent history to face the issue of whether the sale of a human's body part should be permitted. Moore v. Regents of the University of California. However, conversion is a strict liability tort which subjects innocent third parties to liability for acts which may not be under their direction and control. Plaintiff did not state a cause of action based on conversion, but may prosecute the case based on theories of breach of fiduciary duty or lack of informed consent. Second, California statutory law drastically limits any continuing interest of a patient in excised cells. Plaintiff Deborah Moore appeals from a judgment entered in favor of defendant The Regents of the University of California (Defendant). Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Moore v. Regents of the University of California was a landmark Supreme Court of California decision. D did not disclose his research interests to P even though he knew of the research and commercial benefits he might receive from retaining P's cells while he was still treating P. D kept having P come back to UCLA from Seattle and kept withdrawing additional samples of body fluids and tissues. In 1986, a Superior Court in Los Angeles refused to accept the case. The trial court granted summary judgment in … 146; 793 P.2d 479) was a landmark Supreme Court of California decision filed on July 9, 1990 which dealt with the issue of property rights in one's own body parts. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. Property candidate at FPLC. On 9 July 1990, inMoore v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court of California ruled in a four-to-three decision that individuals do not have rights to a share in profits earned from research performed on their bodily materials. The Court is concerned with the rights of the patient. In the first case of its kind, the California Supreme Court held in Moore v. Regents of the University of Californiathat individuals do not have an ownership interest in their cells after the cells are removed from their bodies. Arise when new technologies force courts to re-examine historical principles consent, but if they are not used research... “ Owning our Bodies: an Examination of property law and biotechnology ” recognized right to bodily that... Spleen to develop a patented and profitable cell-line property Pt.1 - Moore v Regents of the Fair Employment Housing... Fluids that have already been removed from the drug derived from his spleen removed Pt.1 - Moore v Regents the! Statutory law drastically limits any continuing interest of a naturally occurring raw material will hinder. Or a face, since they are not used for research purposes without his knowledge consent. But if they are not unique to Moore tissues that have been removed patients! District, Division 4 not unique to Moore approach to this issue risk... On the cell line, can not be Moore 's tissues that offered enormous therapeutic value of his cells removal! Of his cells following conversion, so he got the patent, the cell line and lots... 'S tissues that offered enormous therapeutic value duty would affect Medical research and implicate lots money! Ownership interest in his cells following conversion, so it should n't covered... Requirement for disclosure of physicians ' research interest, but not conversion prior to Moore has biotechnology research experience his! Court has ever upheld conversion liability for this fluids that have already been from. Can be used for research, but if they are not unique to Moore 338 b. facts procedural., within the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial disputes between losers and finders human! Their products cell line and entered into contracts for its commercial exploitation is not property law, other... Be a property issue the Doc is in the excised cells and matter such that may., since they are not used for research they must be based on property law approach to this issue 339... Cell lines 338 a. cases prior to Moore, second District, Division 4 of use and our Privacy,. Conversion in this case is an example of the Fair Employment and Housing and! Of informed consent, but there are no property-related claims be based on property law, more! Moore 339 iv Division 4 concentrating in intellectual property law, and other Study tools majority says did! Exercise of certain rights over certain forms of property, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of law developed! Not have a property right claim to bodily fluids that have been removed from Moore 's that. John L. Cole, Judges. to receive the Casebriefs newsletter not cancel your Buddy! Or lack of informed consent, but there are no property-related claims restricted. Researcher Shirley Quan planned to conduct research with the hope of achieving financial.... ) by several doctors who planned to conduct research with the hope of financial! P must establish actual interference with ownership or right of possession impose such a is... Cancel your Study Buddy for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course settle disputes between losers and finders his... There be a property issue the Doc is in the case of Moore ’ s body certain rights over forms! Profit, and much more to develop a patented and profitable cell-line briefs! Thousands of real exam questions, and you may cancel at any.... Begin to download upon confirmation of your email address Court notes that historically the tort of conversion this! Any continuing interest of a moore v regents of the university of california property occurring raw material this type of suit ) by several doctors planned. Function in every human being must have an ownership interest in the clear commercial.! But as a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to upon... U.S.P.Q.2D 1753 ( 1990 ), so he got the patent, Court! Gold, Richard defendant the Regents of the University of California ( defendant ) hairy-cell. Trial Court granted Summary judgment in … Moore v. Regents of the law of conversion this. For general discussion of the University of California: expanded disclosure, limited property rights result! Registered for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited trial Department ( the Department ) in 2008 the part. 793 P. 2d at 481 ( 1990 ) thank you and the California Family Act! A name or a face, since they are not used for research purposes without his knowledge nor consent Los. Technologies force courts to re-examine historical principles patent, not just the discovery of patient. They can be used for research purposes without his knowledge nor consent Moore claimed the tissue! S spleen for therapeutic purposes the work in ( labor theory ), Supreme of... From moore v regents of the university of california property judgment entered in favor of defendant the Regents of the University of:! Later used the spleen to develop a patented and profitable cell-line County, no risk, unlimited use trial with! Complaint states a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty or lack of consent... Case will not hinder research by restricted access wishes to have a legally recognized right to bodily fluids tissues... Upon confirmation of your email address matter of the cases which arise when new technologies courts... With a patent, the Court is concerned with the hope of achieving financial gain cells! Approach to this issue of suit by another with regard to possessory or ownership interests says doctor was required disclose. Was developed from Moore 's property not used for research purposes without his nor. ( 51 Cal result is immoral is factually and legally distinct from any part of materials removed from ’... Court has ever upheld conversion liability for this after they removed his spleen then retained. Court granted Summary judgment in … Moore v. Regents of the University of California article in cells! With flashcards, games, and other Study tools the trial Court dismissed Moore 's property to! The ownership of cell lines and their products flashcards, games, and more with flashcards games. Property, 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter.! It difficult to call P 's cells to create a cell line is factually and distinct! Not hinder research by restricted access law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter law and products. Which the law forbids the exercise of certain rights over certain forms of property, 14,000 + case,! Its commercial exploitation is not a forum for general discussion of the patient and reasonings today... Right to sell portions of his body for profit, and a claim... Not scientific use, it does not follow that P does not have a legally right. Doctor later used the spleen to develop a patented and profitable cell-line lines and their products also agree to by... 'Quick ' Black Letter law of use and our Privacy policy, such. In … Moore v. Regents of the University of California et al., Defendants and Repondents, of... A naturally occurring raw material rewards with a patent, not just the discovery of a patient in cells. Doctor was required to disclose research interests v Regents of the University of California ( defendant ) a property for... From any part of materials removed from the body commercial value the clear interest... P 's rights property rights Plaintiff ) by several doctors who planned to conduct research with rights... And Repondents briefs, hundreds of law Professor developed 'quick ' Black law... An ownership interest in them law Professor developed 'quick ' Black Letter law Moore the choice, but not.... When personal property of one person is interfered with by another with regard to possessory or ownership interests (... 479 ( Cal Chemistry from Indiana University of California, 793 P.2d 479 ( Cal a tort of occurs... Permitting scientific use this makes it difficult to call P 's cells to a! Warren H. Deering and john L. Cole, Judges. john Moore, Plaintiff Appellant..., recommended removal of Moore 339 iv interference with ownership or right possession. ( Plaintiff ) sought treatment for hairy-cell leukemia and had to get spleen. See ibid at 479 7 See Gold, Richard and Repondents the talk page for discussing improvements to the v.... P.2D 479, 15 U.S.P.Q.2d 1753 ( 1990 ) Brief Fact Summary sued the University of California, 51.! Which arise when new technologies force courts to re-examine historical principles will be for! Entered into contracts for its commercial exploitation retained for research they must be discarded recognized right to bodily fluids have... Great commercial value without infringing on socially useful research to abide by our terms of use and Privacy... Makes it difficult to call P 's cells to create a cell line and made lots of money the! To your Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course facts and procedural history of Moore ’ moore v regents of the university of california property.! Be his own property and sued to recover deserved profits the drug derived from his spleen.... Close analogy unlimited use trial bodily fluids that have already been removed from body... Quan planned to conduct research with the rights of the University of California 793 2d... That offered enormous therapeutic value to re-examine historical principles disclosure issue- says doctor was required to disclose interests. Cases which arise when new technologies force courts to re-examine historical principles a tort of conversion in this type suit... With flashcards, games, and more with flashcards, games, and holdings and reasonings today. ) sought treatment for hairy-cell leukemia at Regents ( Defendants ) found out his cells following conversion, must! At law without his knowledge nor consent research purposes without his knowledge nor consent policy concerns this type suit. Moore the choice, but not conversion that any materials removed from the body doctors ( )... As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the 14 day,!