Moore v. Regents of University of California

I dissent.

Contrary to the principal holding of the Court of Appeal, the majority conclude that the complaint does not—in fact cannot—state a cause of action for conversion. I disagree with this conclusion for all the reasons *161stated by the Court of Appeal, and for additional reasons that I shall explain. For convenience I shall discuss the six premises of the majority’s conclusion in the order in which they appear.

1

The majority first take the position that Moore has no cause of action for conversion under existing law because he retained no “ownership interest” in his cells after they were…