Missouri Revised Statutes
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 358.010 (2026)
Name of law
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
358.010. Name of law. — This chapter may be cited as "Uniform Partnership Law".
--------
(L. 1949 p. 506 § 1)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: 8182 Maryland Assocs., Ltd. P'ship v. Sheehan, 14 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. 2000).
8182 Maryland Assocs., Ltd. P'ship v. Sheehan, 14 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. 2000). “Sections 358.010 to 358.430, RSMo 1994. The UPL is nearly identical to the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA), adopted in most states.”
Eisenberg v. Redd, 38 S.W.3d 409 (Mo. 2001). “Under the Uniform Partnership Law, sections 358.010 to 358.430, RSMo 1994, when respondent Goss resigned on April 15, 1994, the existing partnership was dissolved, and a new partnership, the one that actually entered into the contract, was formed.”
Disalvo Props., LLC v. Bluff View Com., LLC, & Debi Purvis, 464 S.W.3d 243 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015). “119 predates the model rules, which do expressly contemplate and authorize a court-ordered foreclosure and sale of charged membership interests in an LLC.”
Schreibman v. Zanetti, 909 S.W.2d 692 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). “However, [I] specifically deny [the] intention to form, and thus the existence of a partnership in [the] entire Enesco business.”
Morrison v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm'n, 23 S.W.3d 902 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). “1 provides that “[a] ‘partnership’ is an association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners a business for profit and includes, for all purposes of the laws of this state, a registered limited liability partnership.”
Cook v. Martin, 71 S.W.3d 677 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). “Several objections were made by Cook when he attempted through testimony to characterize the relationship as a partnership so as to invoke the statutory right to an accounting under the Missouri Partnership Act, §§ 358.010, et seq., RSMo. At one point ASDE’s objection was…”
McKinney v. Truck Ins. Exch., 324 S.W.2d 773 (Mo. Ct. App. 1959). “There may be a judicial tendency toward the entity theory [40 Am.”
Gauldin v. Corn, 595 S.W.2d 329 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). “Grissom, Flint, and the cases following them, reflect a more fair and equitable rule which is consistent with the language contained in Missouri’s Uniform Partnership Law, § 358.010 et seq., RSMo 1978. Section 358.”
Kevin Barnett & R.E. Gen. Contracting, LLC v. Jeffrey Forster (Mo. Ct. App. 2024). “2 Sections 358.010–358.520. eligible for Rule 74.”
Am. Nat. Ins. v. Gilroy, Sims & Assocs., 874 F. Supp. 971 (E.D. Mo. 1995). “§§ 358.010, 358.420. Trustee argues that he was never a partner in either the general or limited partnership inasmuch as he was never named as a partner in any of the partnership agreements, never held himself out as a partner, and the January 15, 1982 assignment did not assign…”
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.