Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 23-4-1-1 (2025)
Short title
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 1. This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Partnership Act.
Formerly: Acts 1949, c.114, s.1. As amended by P.L.34-1987, SEC.286.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1982–2012 · leading case: Rice v. Strunk, 670 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. 1996).
Rice v. Strunk, 670 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. 1996). “, and the Indiana UPA, Ind.Code § 23-4-1-1 et seq., we believe the partnership law issues would be resolved the same way in either jurisdiction.”
Brown v. Katz, 868 N.E.2d 1159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Indiana Code §§ 23-4-1-1 et seq. 3 . Margaret was the President and sole shareholder of BroTwo.”
Husted v. McCloud, 450 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. 1983). “The trial court relied upon the provisions of Indiana's Uniform Partnership Act, Ind. Code §§ 23-4-1-1 through 43 (Burns 1972), when it entered judgment against the partnership for both punitive and compensatory damages.”
Bell v. Clark, 670 N.E.2d 1290 (Ind. 1996). “Ind.Code § 23-4-1-1 et. seq. See also Unif.”
In re RUETH Dev. Co., an Indiana Ltd. P'ship, 976 N.E.2d 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “§ 23-16-12-3 provides that for matters not addressed under the IRULPA, the provisions of I.C. § 23-4-1-1, et seq., the Indiana Uniform Partnership Act (IUPA), control.”
Kelly v. Smith, 611 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 1993). “Code § 23-4-1-1 through § 23-4-1-43, to govern matters not addressed by or in conflict with the partnership agreement.”
Credentials Plus, LLC v. Calderone, 230 F. Supp. 2d 890 (N.D. Ind. 2002). “In light of LLCs’ hybrid nature, examination of Indiana’s standards for fiduciary breaches under partnership and corporate law is helpful in assessing Calderone’s conduct.”
Weisman v. Hopf-Himsel, Inc., 535 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). “Indiana Code sections 23-4-1-1 et seq. The evidence reveals that Weisman Farms was a partnership and that Fred and Mark Weisman were partners in Weisman Farms.”
Earl R. Miller v. Gain Fin., Inc., 995 F.2d 706 (7th Cir. 1993). “Appellants assert that the court erred in dismissing these claims as to KGR because they were not dismissed as to Kirsch who was the managing partner of KGR, and therefore an agent of the law firm under the Uniform Partnership Act, codified at Ind.Code §§ 23-4-1-1, et seq. Any…”
Soley v. VanKeppel, 656 N.E.2d 508 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 23-4-1-1 et seq., defines a partnership as "an association of two (2) or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.”
Husted v. McCloud, 436 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982). “In its conclusions of law the trial court expressly relied upon the provisions of Indiana’s Uniform Partnership Act, Ind. Code §§ 23-4-1-1 to 43 (1976). Section 13 states that “[w]here, by any wrongful act or omission of any partner acting in the ordinary course of the business…”
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.