Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 323. UNIFORM PARTNERSHIP ACT
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 323.06 (2026)

[Repealed]

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[Repealed, 1997 c 174 art 12 s 68; 1998 c 262 s 12]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1952–1994 · leading case: In Re Schyma, 68 B.R. 52 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Schyma, 68 B.R. 52 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1985). · cites it 3× “As a result, Dwayne has no partnership interest in any of Paul’s property and First American’s objection fails on the second ground. The Minnesota enactment of the Uniform Partnership Act, MINN.”
In Re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig., 669 F. Supp. 284 (D. Minnesota 1985). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 323.06. One factor to be considered is that “[t]he receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business.”
White Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Waterhouse, 158 F.R.D. 429 (D. Minnesota 1994). · cites it 2× “See, Minnesota Statutes Section 323.06 ("receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business”); cf.”
Rehnberg v. Minnesota Homes, Inc., 52 N.W.2d 454 (Minn. 1952). “In the analogous situation of a partnership, § 323.06(4) (b) provides that the receipt by a person of a share in the profits is prima facie evidence that he is a partner, but that no inference shall be drawn if such profits are received in payment as wages of an employe.”
Blumberg v. Palm, 56 N.W.2d 412 (Minn. 1953). “They cite § 323.06, which provides in part: “In determining whether a partnership exists, these rules shall apply: ***** “(4) The receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business, * * * ? However, a prima…”
Lund v. Chem. Bank, 665 F. Supp. 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). “Minn.Stat. § 323.06(4) (1984). In this case, Rubin and Lund intended and did share in the profits of their aircraft business.”
In Re Bigalk, 75 B.R. 561 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1987). “btor points to his six-year ongoing joint farming operation with Betty and Wayne Howard; his assumption of personal liability on Betty’s debts to the Bank in 1985; and his, Betty’s, and Wayne Howard’s sharing of profits derived from their farming activity; and the fact that they…”
— Minn. Stat. § 323.06(3) — 1 case
In Re Schyma, 68 B.R. 52 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1985). “As a result, Dwayne has no partnership interest in any of Paul’s property and First American’s objection fails on the second ground. The Minnesota enactment of the Uniform Partnership Act, MINN.”
— Minn. Stat. § 323.06(4) — 3 cases
Rehnberg v. Minnesota Homes, Inc., 52 N.W.2d 454 (Minn. 1952). “In the analogous situation of a partnership, § 323.06(4) (b) provides that the receipt by a person of a share in the profits is prima facie evidence that he is a partner, but that no inference shall be drawn if such profits are received in payment as wages of an employe.”
In Re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig., 669 F. Supp. 284 (D. Minnesota 1985). “Minn.Stat. § 323.06. One factor to be considered is that “[t]he receipt by a person of a share of the profits of a business is prima facie evidence that he is a partner in the business.”
Lund v. Chem. Bank, 665 F. Supp. 218 (S.D.N.Y. 1987). “Minn.Stat. § 323.06(4) (1984). In this case, Rubin and Lund intended and did share in the profits of their aircraft 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.