Moore v. Regents of University of California Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
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.
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
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
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