Cal. Codes » Civil Code / DIVISION 2. PROPERTY / PART 1. PROPERTY IN GENERAL / TITLE 1. NATURE OF PROPERTY
California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 654 (2026)

Nature Of Property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others. In this Code, the thing of which there may be ownership is called property.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1947–2023 · leading case: Snyder & Assocs. Acquisitions LLC v. United States, 859 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Snyder & Assocs. Acquisitions LLC v. United States, 859 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2017). “See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 654 , 1712. California case law is sparse in these areas, but California defines “ownership of a thing” as “the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.”
Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp., 55 Cal. Rptr. 3d 621 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “” (Civ. Code, § 654.) 12 Insurance Code section 1215.”
Kremen v. Cohen, 325 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2003). “” See Cal. Civ.Code §§ 654 & 655(property includes “all inanimate things which are capable of appropriation or of manual delivery”).”
Lyon v. Eiseman (In Re Forbes), 372 B.R. 321 (6th Cir. BAP 2007). “” Cal. Civ.Code § 654. Ownership, in turn, is “the right of one or more persons to possess and use [a thing] to the exclusion of others.”
People v. Kwok, 63 Cal. App. 4th 1236 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “Civil Code section 654 provides as follows: “The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.”
Johnston v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 187 P.2d 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947). · cites it 2× “) The ownership of a thing is the right of one or more persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.”
Acme Circus Operating Co., Inc., a Florida Corp. v. Jane Beatty Kuperstock, 711 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1983). “Given our interpretation of California law, there is at least one question bearing on the issue of survivability that the district court must resolve.”
People v. L. T., 103 Cal. App. 4th 262 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “(Civ. Code, §§ 654, 655; see also People v.”
United States v. Harry S. Stonehill Robert P. Brooks, 83 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1996). “See Cal. Civil Code §§ 654 and 663; Parker v.”
Pvm Redwood Co., Inc. v. United States, 686 F.2d 1327 (9th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Civil Code § 654 (West 1954). The Commercial Code states that a contract for the sale of timber to be severed is a contract for the sale of goods.”
People v. Kwok, 75 Cal. Rptr. 2d 40 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “" Thus, property is something that one has the exclusive right to Possess and use.”
Kucera v. Lizza, 59 Cal. App. 4th 1141 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). “) Lizza cites the ordinance’s impact on his “bundle of rights” as a property owner, including the right to possess and use his property to the exclusion of others (see generally, Civ. Code, § 654), but this does not make the ordinance irrational or unreasonable.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
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.