United States v. Arora
United States District Court for the District of Maryland
860 F. Supp. 1091 (1994)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Doctor Prince Kumar Arora (defendant) worked at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a research facility belonging to the United States government (plaintiff). Arora hired postdoctoral student Yoshitatsu Sei and became his mentor. Sei remained free to collaborate with other departments. Sei began a project with other NIH doctors to cultivate a cell line known as Alpha 1-4 (Alpha). Using complex methods, they developed a stable cell line, were able to maintain it in deep-freeze storage, and prepared to publish their research and donate the line for use by scientists around the world. Before publishing, Sei needed to perform certain experiments on the cell line. By this time, the relationship between Sei and Arora had soured. When some of the stored Alpha cells started dying unexpectedly, Sei suspected tampering. NIH police found evidence that Arora was entering the facilities where Alpha was stored after hours and introducing a harmful chemical into some of the Alpha flasks. The United States sued Arora for tortious trespass and conversion, alleging that Arora intentionally tampered with and destroyed the Alpha cells, significantly delaying completion of the research project. The government presented evidence that the cell deaths resulted in a loss of flasks and materials valued at $176.68. Additionally, 13 hours of labor by a lab assistant were needed to recreate the lost cells, costing $273.52.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Messitte, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.