History:
L. 1972, ch. 210, § 24; Repealed, L. 1998, ch. 93, § 76; July 1, 1999.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. A partner's assignment of rights under a contract for the sale of a partnership asset was valid; affirmed. Wellsville Bank v. Nicolay, 7 Kan. App. 2d 172, 174, 638 P.2d 975 (1982).
2. Cited; disposition of partnership interests under charging orders examined. City of Arkansas City. v. Anderson, 12 Kan. App. 2d 490, 497, 749 P.2d 505 (1988).
3. Cited; charging order (K.S.A. 56-328) creating lien when served as superior to assignment constituting prior unperfected security interest noted. City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 242 Kan. 875, 881, 891, 752 P.2d 673 (1988).
4. Applicability of restrictions on partnership admission in limited partnership agreement K.S.A. 56-1a101 et seq.) to involuntary transfers of partnership interests examined. Temple v. White Lakes Plaza Assocs., Ltd., 15 Kan. App. 2d 771, 779, 816 P.2d 399 (1991).
City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 752 P.2d 673 (Kan. 1988). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 56-324 through 56-327 deal with a partner’s property rights in a partnership.”
City of Arkansas City v. Anderson, 749 P.2d 505 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988). “” K.S.A. 56-324 states: “The property rights of a partner are (1) the partner’s rights in specific *498 partnership property, (2) his or her interest in the partnership, and (3) his or her right to participate in the management.”
Temple v. White Lakes Plaza Assocs., Ltd., 816 P.2d 399 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “See K.S.A. 56-324. A partner’s interest in the partnership is his or her share of the profits and surplus, K.”
Wellsville Bank v. Nicolay, 638 P.2d 975 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “K.S.A. 56-324 provides: “The property rights of a partner are (1) the partner’s rights in specific partnership property, (2) his or her interest in the partnership, and (3) his or her right to participate in the management.”
Beech Acceptance Corp. v. Connell, 771 F. Supp. 1154 (D. Kan. 1991). “K.S.A. 56-324. A partner cannot assign his right to specific partnership property without the consent of the other partners.”
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.