Dissolution is caused:
(1) Without violation of the agreement between the partners:
(a) By the termination of the definite term or particular undertaking specified in the agreement,
(b) By the express will of any partner when no definite term or particular undertaking is specified,
(c) By the express will of all the partners who have not assigned their interests or suffered them to be charged for their separate debts, either before or after the termination of any specified term or particular undertaking,
(d) By the expulsion of any partner from the business bona fide in accordance with such a power conferred by the agreement between the partners;
(2) In contravention of the agreement between the partners, where the circumstances do not permit a dissolution under any other provision of this section, by the express will of any partner at any time;
(3) By any event which makes it unlawful for the business of the partnership to be carried on or for the members to carry it on in partnership;
(4) By the death of any partner;
(5) By the bankruptcy of any partner or the partnership;
(6) By decree of court under KRS 362.305. Effective: June 26, 2007 History: Repeal the prior repeal contained in 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 149, sec. 239, which was to have been effective January 1, 2008, 2007 Ky. Acts ch. 137, sec. 180, effective June 26, 2007. -- Repealed 2006, Ky. Acts ch. 149, sec. 239, effective January 1, 2008. -- Created 1954 Ky. Acts ch. 38, sec. 31, effective June 17, 1954.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2022 · leading case:
Fischer v. Fischer, 197 S.W.3d 98 (Ky. 2006).
Fischer v. Fischer, 197 S.W.3d 98 (Ky. 2006).
· cites it 18× “[7] *102 Appellant first argues that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to determine whether D & T Enterprises was a partnership for a particular undertaking pursuant to KRS 362.300. He contends that if the partnership was for a particular undertaking, then Richard would have…”
Haymaker Dev. Co., LLC v. Gatton (E.D. Ky. 2022).
“Assuming arguendo that the parties were involved in a partnership under the facts as alleged, Gatton was within his rights to terminate it when he decided that he no longer wanted to do business with Haymaker.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 362.300(1)(b) — 2 cases
Fischer v. Fischer, 197 S.W.3d 98 (Ky. 2006).
“[7] *102 Appellant first argues that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to determine whether D & T Enterprises was a partnership for a particular undertaking pursuant to KRS 362.300. He contends that if the partnership was for a particular undertaking, then Richard would have…”
Haymaker Dev. Co., LLC v. Gatton (E.D. Ky. 2022).
“Assuming arguendo that the parties were involved in a partnership under the facts as alleged, Gatton was within his rights to terminate it when he decided that he no longer wanted to do business with Haymaker.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 362.300(4) — 1 case
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 362.300(l)(b) — 1 case
Fischer v. Fischer, 197 S.W.3d 98 (Ky. 2006).
“[7] *102 Appellant first argues that the Court of Appeals erred by failing to determine whether D & T Enterprises was a partnership for a particular undertaking pursuant to KRS 362.300. He contends that if the partnership was for a particular undertaking, then Richard would have…”
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.