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

Minn. Stat. § 323.14 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1997 c 174 art 12 s 68; 1998 c 262 s 12]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 5 cases, 1974–1995 · leading case: Brunsoman v. Seltz, 414 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brunsoman v. Seltz, 414 N.W.2d 547 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 323.14 (1982) makes all partners liable jointly for the debts and obligations of the partnership.”
White Consol. Indus., Inc. v. Waterhouse, 158 F.R.D. 429 (D. Minnesota 1994). · cites it 2× “1987) (review denied, January 15, 1988) (same). . By Affidavit, the Defendant avers that no partnership agreement has been filed with the State of Minnesota, and that her husband is not a partner in the enterprise.”
E. H. Boerth Co. v. Lad Props., 82 F.R.D. 635 (D. Minnesota 1979). “§ 323.14. The jury properly concluded on the *644 evidence that defendant Donnay was a principal force in the deception surrounding the Landings project.”
Lidberg v. United States, 375 F. Supp. 631 (D. Minnesota 1974). “§ 323.14(1). Since the taxpayer, Milton, and A & H were jointly and severally liable for the taxes in question, the Government could have levied on any of their individual property interests.”
London, Anderson & Hoeft, Ltd. v. Minnesota Lawyers Mut. Ins. Co., 530 N.W.2d 576 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “MLM argues that because all shareholders benefit when MLM defends a malpractice suit against the professional corporation and one of its members, all shareholders should be concomitantly Hable.”
— Minn. Stat. § 323.14(1) — 1 case
Lidberg v. United States, 375 F. Supp. 631 (D. Minnesota 1974). “§ 323.14(1). Since the taxpayer, Milton, and A & H were jointly and severally liable for the taxes in question, the Government could have levied on any of their individual property interests.”
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.