ABSTRACT
John Moore's claim that his medical mistreatment justified the award he sought was likely to attract attention, but the amount of compensation for which he sued was not as extraordinary as the basis of his claim in property law. The majority of the Supreme Court of California based its approach on the available causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent to satisfy and redress any complaint that Moore could establish on the facts. The recognition that the Court gave biotechnological medical research and cell line development in the Moore case might be applicable apriori to transplantation research. The majority in Moore approached the question of property rights in cells extracted from a living person's body primarily in terms of public or social policy. Accordingly, tissue and organ donations will continue to warrant the law's instrumental protection through legal recognition of donors' claims to control the destination and use of their in vitro body materials.
