Moore v. Regents of the University of California [1990]
51 Cal. 3d 120 (1990) · Supreme Court of California · California, United States
Summary
Important bioethics, property, and informed consent case.
Facts
Researchers developed a cell line from a patient's biological materials without fully disclosing commercial interests.
Issue
Did the patient retain property rights in excised cells?
Held
No conversion claim, but fiduciary duty and informed consent claims could proceed.
Ratio Decidendi
Patients may have disclosure-based claims even when conversion does not apply to excised cells.
Reasoning
The court was reluctant to extend property rights in human tissues after removal.
Significance
Important bioethics, property, and informed consent case.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.