California Codes
Cal. Civil Code § 1066 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Grants are to be interpreted in like manner with contracts in general, except so far as is otherwise provided in this Article.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Riley v. Bear Creek Plan. Comm., 551 P.2d 1213 (Cal. 1976).
Riley v. Bear Creek Plan. Comm., 551 P.2d 1213 (Cal. 1976). “(1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) Contracts, § 204.”
People v. Honig, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5920 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). “(Civ. Code, § 1066.) These rules provide that the interpretation of written instruments is to be governed by their language; the words of the instruments are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense; and, to the extent technical words are used, they are to be…”
City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court, 914 P.2d 160 (Cal. 1996). “603 ]; Civ. Code, § 1066; see Civ. Code, § 1635 et seq.”
Hill v. San Jose Fam. Hous. Partners, LLC, 198 Cal. App. 4th 764 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). “2d 889 ]; Civ. Code, § 1066.) The scope of an easement is determined by the terms of the grant, or by the nature of the enjoyment.”
Cont'l Baking Co. v. Katz, 439 P.2d 889 (Cal. 1968). “” (Civ. Code, § 1066; see Laux v. Freed, supra, 53 Cal.”
Mission Valley East, Inc. v. Cnty. of Kern, 120 Cal. App. 3d 89 (Cal. Ct. App. 1981). “The law governing interpretation of written instruments establishes that the subjective intent of a party is of no moment in ascertaining the meaning of the words used in the instruments.”
MacHado v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6478 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “3 In such circumstances, the appellate court exercises its independent judgment as to the construction of the instrument at issue. (9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 292 et seq.”
Cnty. of Solano v. Handlery, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 201 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “Code, § 1638); and a grant is to be interpreted in favor of the grantee, except that a reservation in a grant is to be interpreted in favor of the grantor (Civ.”
Concord & Bay Point Land Co. v. City of Concord, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2658 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991). “(Civ. Code, § 1066; White v. State of California (1971) 21 Cal.”
Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist, 498 P.2d 987 (Cal. 1972). “(Civ. Code, § 1066; Dandini v. Johnson (1961) 193 Cal.”
Geothermal Kinetics, Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 58 Oil & Gas Rep. 22 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977). “In the construction of a grant or reservation of an interest in real property, a court seeks to determine the intent of the parties, giving effect to a particular intent over a general intent.”
Pariani v. State of California, 66 Oil & Gas Rep. 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). “(Civ. Code, §§ 1066, 1636; Code Civ. Proc.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.