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

Minn. Stat. § 323.17 (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[Repealed]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[Repealed, 1997 c 174 art 12 s 68; 1998 c 262 s 12]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 8 cases, 1953–2003 · leading case: Maus v. Galic, 669 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Maus v. Galic, 669 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 323.17 (2000). 2 While Minnesota’s Uniform Partnership Act, Minn.”
Hurwitz v. Padden, 581 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 323.17(6) (1996) 1 (emphasis added).”
Maloney v. Ketter, 408 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 6× “2d 821, 823 (1953); see Minn.Stat. § 323.17(1) (1986). Because of the trial court’s silence, we remand for further finding of fact regarding appellant’s post-formation contributions to the partnership and any necessary correction concerning calculation of respondent’s share of…”
Schaefer v. Bork, 413 N.W.2d 873 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “d duties of the partners in relation to the partnership shall be determined, subject to any agreement between them, by the following rules: (1) Each partner shall be repaid his contributions, whether by way of capital or advances to the partnership property and share equally in…”
Wallner v. Schmitz, 57 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 1953). “§ 323.17(1). A release on an unliquidated claim given for a valuable consideration is an effective defense to any action on that claim in the absence of circumstances rendering the release invalid.”
Opus Corp., a Minnesota Corp. v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., a New York Corp., 141 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1998). “Minnesota law grants equally sophisticated partners the right to place in their equally sophisticated limited partnership agreement a “business judgment rule” that defines the context against which the ever-present fiduciary duty of the partners will be judged. See, e.”
Lidberg v. United States, 375 F. Supp. 631 (D. Minnesota 1974). “§ 323.17(2); 68 C.J.S. Partnership, supra, § 116.”
Opus Corp. v. IBM (8th Cir. 1998). “Minnesota law grants equally sophisticated partners the right to place in their equally -16- sophisticated limited partnership agreement a “business judgment rule” that defines the context against which the ever-present fiduciary duty of the partners will be judged. See, e.g.,…”
— Minn. Stat. § 323.17(1) — 3 cases
Schaefer v. Bork, 413 N.W.2d 873 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “d duties of the partners in relation to the partnership shall be determined, subject to any agreement between them, by the following rules: (1) Each partner shall be repaid his contributions, whether by way of capital or advances to the partnership property and share equally in…”
Wallner v. Schmitz, 57 N.W.2d 821 (Minn. 1953). “§ 323.17(1). A release on an unliquidated claim given for a valuable consideration is an effective defense to any action on that claim in the absence of circumstances rendering the release invalid.”
Maloney v. Ketter, 408 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “2d 821, 823 (1953); see Minn.Stat. § 323.17(1) (1986). Because of the trial court’s silence, we remand for further finding of fact regarding appellant’s post-formation contributions to the partnership and any necessary correction concerning calculation of respondent’s share of…”
— Minn. Stat. § 323.17(2) — 2 cases
Maloney v. Ketter, 408 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “2d 821, 823 (1953); see Minn.Stat. § 323.17(1) (1986). Because of the trial court’s silence, we remand for further finding of fact regarding appellant’s post-formation contributions to the partnership and any necessary correction concerning calculation of respondent’s share of…”
Lidberg v. United States, 375 F. Supp. 631 (D. Minnesota 1974). “§ 323.17(2); 68 C.J.S. Partnership, supra, § 116.”
— Minn. Stat. § 323.17(3) — 1 case
Maloney v. Ketter, 408 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). “2d 821, 823 (1953); see Minn.Stat. § 323.17(1) (1986). Because of the trial court’s silence, we remand for further finding of fact regarding appellant’s post-formation contributions to the partnership and any necessary correction concerning calculation of respondent’s share of…”
— Minn. Stat. § 323.17(6) — 2 cases
Hurwitz v. Padden, 581 N.W.2d 359 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). “Minn.Stat. § 323.17(6) (1996) 1 (emphasis added).”
Maus v. Galic, 669 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). “Minn.Stat. § 323.17 (2000). 2 While Minnesota’s Uniform Partnership Act, Minn.”
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.