Moore v. Regents of the University of California [1990]
51 Cal. 3d 120 (1990) · Supreme Court of California · California, United States
Issue
Did the patient retain property rights in excised cells?
Held
No conversion claim, but fiduciary duty and informed consent claims could proceed.
Exam use
Review the ratio and reasoning before applying this case in problem questions.
Summary
Important bioethics, property, and informed consent case.
Facts
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
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Moore v. Regents of the University of California (51 Cal. 3d 120 (1990)) strengthens a property law answer because the case reflects the principle that Patients may have disclosure-based claims even when conversion does not apply to excised cells. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Did the patient retain property rights in excised cells? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Significance
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
Revision Checklist
- Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
- State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
- Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
- Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.