Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 322. 1919 UNIFORM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 322.28 (2026)

Rules Of Construction

✓ text as last checked Sept. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The rules that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed shall have no application to this chapter.

This chapter shall be so interpreted and construed as to effect its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it.

This chapter shall not be so construed as to impair the obligations of any contract existing when the chapter became effective, nor to affect any action or proceeding begun or right accrued before this chapter became effective.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1998–1998 · leading case: Opus Corp. v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 141 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Opus Corp. v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 141 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1998). “2d at 892-93 (failure of general partners who sold building to limited partners to disclose presence and danger of asbestos amounted to breach of fiduciary duty precluding summary judgment (citing Minn.Stat. § 322.28(2))). We assume, as Opus claims, that IBM failed to give Opus…”
Opus Corp. v. IBM, No. 97-3432 (8th Cir. Apr. 20, 1998). “2d at 892-93 (failure of general partners who sold building to limited partners to disclose presence and danger of asbestos amounted to breach of fiduciary duty precluding summary judgment (citing Minn. Stat. § 322.28 (2))). We assume, as Opus claims, that IBM failed to give…”
Minn. Stat. § 322.28(2): 1 case
Opus Corp. v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 141 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1998). “2d at 892-93 (failure of general partners who sold building to limited partners to disclose presence and danger of asbestos amounted to breach of fiduciary duty precluding summary judgment (citing Minn.Stat. § 322.28(2))). We assume, as Opus claims, that IBM failed to give Opus…”
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.