Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 7
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 7-60-129 (2024)

Dissolution defined

✓ 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

The dissolution of a partnership is the change in the relation of the partners caused by any partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on as distinguished from the winding up of the business.

Source: L. 31: p. 660, § 29. CSA: C. 123, § 29. CRS 53: § 104-1-29. C.R.S. 1963: § 104-1-29.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1983–1996 · leading case: Wester & Co. v. Nestle, 669 P.2d 1046 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wester & Co. v. Nestle, 669 P.2d 1046 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 7× “) that dissolution is caused by “the express will of any partner when no definite term or particular undertaking is specified.” Section 7-60-129, C.R.”
In re Marriage of Paul, 821 P.2d 925 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “By the same reasoning, in order to avoid a dissolution of the partnership under § 7-60-129, C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 3A), or a disruption of partnership business, we conclude that it is inappropriate here to award an in-kind division of wife’s interest.”
Tafoya v. Perkins, 932 P.2d 836 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “Section 7-60-129, C.R.S (1986 Repl. Vol. 3A) of the Uniform Partnership Law (the Act) provides that: The dissolution of any partnership is the change in relation of the partners caused *838 by any partner ceasing to be associated in the carrying on as distinguished from the…”
Travers v. Rainey, 888 P.2d 372 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). “See generally §§ 7-60-129 to 7-60-141, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.”
Master Garage, Inc. v. Bugdanowitz, 690 P.2d 879 (Colo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “” Section 7-60-129, C.R.S. The record here is replete with Blecker’s statements of unwillingness to participate in the partnership in any meaningful way, and many of these statements were made prior to June 25, 1979, when plaintiff filed this action.”
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.