Moore v. Regents of The University of Calif. case brief

 Moore v. Regents of The University of Calif.- (Cal 1990)

FACTS
-P claimed that Ds wrongfully used/profited from cells of P’s diseased spleen and other organs.

1. Rule: A person does not have a property interest in cell tissue—can’t support conversion claim b/c P did not expect to retain possession of his cells—no ownership interest.
2. Ct says ok to breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent, but P needs conversion to get a piece of the patent profits.
3. 1st possessor (Mohr) vs. labor theory (researchers)--Ct says patent to distinct from the cells, points to the labor that was done to make them valuable. Makes argument that cells are not unique in themselves although this apparently is not the case.
4. 1st section formalistic (Cali Statute on point); 2nd part is instrumentalist (should conversion be extended?)
5. Dissent makes compelling arguments based on ethics (crucial contribution) and equity (people have legal property interest in own body—unjust enrichment here.)