Colorado Revised Statutes
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-60-101 (2024)
Short title
✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Partnership Law".
Source: L. 31: p. 645, § 1. CSA: C. 123, § 1. CRS 53: § 104-1-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 104-1- 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: Hooper v. Yoder, 737 P.2d 852 (Colo. 1987).
Hooper v. Yoder, 737 P.2d 852 (Colo. 1987). “Hooper goes on to argue that even if the partnership continued after formation of the corporation, he was entitled to the contested salary as compensation for services performed during the period of winding up the partnership, We do not agree with Hooper’s analysis. A. The…”
LaFond v. Sweeney, 2015 CO 3, 343 P.3d 939. “117 Unlike Colorado's Uniform Partnership Law of 1981 ("UPL"), §§ 7-60-101 to - 154, C.R.S. (2014), the UPA, and the Model Act, the LLC Act does not contain any provision granting members, managers, or surviving partners the right to additional compensation for their services in…”
Cruz v. Benine, 984 P.2d 1173 (Colo. 1999). “The Uniform Partnership Law, sections 7-60-101 to -153, 2 C.R.S. (1998) (“UPL”), governs this analysis.”
People v. Clayton, 728 P.2d 723 (Colo. 1986). “The court ruled, however, that a partner cannot be charged with theft of partnership property under section 18-4-401 or the Uniform Partnership Law (UPL), sections 7-60-101, et seq., 3A C.R.S. (1986) because partnership property is not a thing of value of another.”
Watt, Tieder, Killian & Hoffar v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 847 P.2d 170 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). “Its basis for *172 such action was its assertion that, under the Uniform Partnership Law, § 7-60-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”
People v. Katz, 58 P.3d 1176 (Colo. 2002). “4 The “Joint Venture/Partnership Defense” to All Claims Katz asserts that his withdrawal or attempted withdrawal of funds from the joint account was proper, allowed and justified under applicable substantive Colorado partnership/joint venture law.”
Adams v. Land Servs., Inc., 194 P.3d 429 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “Applicable Legal Principles Plaintiffs' rights and status as general partners of Brighton Farms are determined under Colorado's Uniform Partnership Law (UPL), §§ 7-60-101 to-154, C.R.S.2007, which governs here because Brighton Farms was formed before 1998.”
Harbor Pointe Off. Park, Ltd. v. Prudential Nat'l Assurance Co. (In Re Harbor Pointe Off. Park, Ltd.), 83 B.R. 44 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1988). “Harbor Pointe’s argument is in large part based upon the provisions of the Colorado Partnership Law, C.R.S. §§ 7-60-101 et seq., and the Colorado Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 1981, C.”
In re Marriage of Paul, 821 P.2d 925 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). “Under the entity theory of partnership adopted in the Uniform Partnership Act, § 7-60-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1986 Repl. Vol.”
Power Petroleums, Inc. v. P & G Mining Co., 682 F. Supp. 492 (D. Colo. 1988). “] hereby form and establish a General Partnership (hereinafter the “Partnership”) to be governed by the Colorado Uniform Partnership Law (Section 7-60-101 et seq., C.R.S.1973, as amended) to the extent not otherwise provided for in this Agreement.”
Kline Hotel Partners v. Aircoa Equity Interests, Inc., 708 F. Supp. 1193 (D. Colo. 1989). “See § 7-60-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.”
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Teem P'ship, 835 F. Supp. 563 (D. Colo. 1993). “When read in light of Colorado’s Uniform Partnership Law, §§ 7-60-101 et seq., 3A C.R.S. (1986), § 13-50-105 and Rule 106(a)(5) concern the same subject matter — an individual partner’s liability for a partnership obligation.”
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.