Connection lost
Server error
Moore v. Regents of University of California Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A patient sued his doctor for using his unique cells to create a lucrative patented cell line without his consent. The court allowed a claim for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to disclose economic interests but rejected a claim for the tort of conversion of the cells.
Legal Significance: This case established that physicians have a fiduciary duty to disclose personal economic interests in a patient’s treatment but declined to extend the tort of conversion to cover excised human cells, citing public policy concerns about hindering medical research.
Moore v. Regents of University of California Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff John Moore was treated for hairy-cell leukemia at UCLA Medical Center by Dr. David Golde. Golde, aware of the potential commercial value of Moore’s unique T-lymphocytes, recommended a splenectomy to treat the leukemia. Before the surgery, Golde and his associates arranged to obtain portions of Moore’s spleen for research purposes without informing Moore of their pre-existing research and economic interests. Following the splenectomy, Golde continued to take samples of Moore’s blood, bone marrow, and other bodily substances for seven years under the guise of follow-up care. During this time, Golde and the Regents of the University of California developed a cell line from Moore’s cells, which they patented and licensed for commercial development, generating substantial financial benefits for themselves and their corporate partners. Moore was never informed of the commercial use of his cells and was actively discouraged from inquiring about their financial value. Upon discovering the patent and commercial agreements, Moore sued Golde and the other parties involved, alleging thirteen causes of action, including conversion and breach of fiduciary duty/lack of informed consent.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a patient state a cause of action for the tort of conversion and for breach of a physician’s fiduciary duty of disclosure when the physician uses the patient’s excised cells for lucrative medical research without the patient’s informed consent?
Yes, the complaint states a cause of action for breach of fiduciary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vol
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Can a patient state a cause of action for the tort of conversion and for breach of a physician’s fiduciary duty of disclosure when the physician uses the patient’s excised cells for lucrative medical research without the patient’s informed consent?
Conclusion
This landmark decision limits property-based tort liability by refusing to recognize a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Dui
Legal Rule
A physician has a fiduciary duty to disclose all personal interests, whether Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur
Legal Analysis
The court bifurcated its analysis into two distinct tort claims. First, regarding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim ven
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A physician has a fiduciary duty to disclose personal research and
