Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 67
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 67-401 (2026)

Act, how cited

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sections 67-401 to 67-467 shall be known and may be cited as the Uniform Partnership Act of 1998.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP v. Assam, 915 N.W.2d 770 (Neb. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP v. Assam, 915 N.W.2d 770 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “9 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 67-401 to 67-467 (Reissue 2009 & Cum.”
Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 745 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 3× “Harley was not entitled to profit distributions after his dissociation.”
Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co., 830 N.W.2d 191 (Neb. 2013). · cites it 2× “The court concluded that appel- lants did not prove the occurrence of events authorizing dis- solution under § 67-439(5) because (1) nothing had occurred to interfere with the partnership’s ability to buy, own, and rent 1 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 67-401 to 67-467 (Reissue 2009).”
In re Dissolution & Winding Up of KeyTronics, 744 N.W.2d 425 (Neb. 2008). · cites it 2× “*962 CONCLUSION Because Willson has proved a partnership relationship with King, he is entitled to a winding up and an accounting in accordance with the Act.”
Mogensen v. Mogensen, 729 N.W.2d 44 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “CONCLUSION We conclude that Keith did not timely exercise the buy-sell provision of the partnership agreement. DeWulf Place is partnership property subject to Mogensen Bros.”
Fredericks Peebles v. Assam, 300 Neb. 670 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 2× “9 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 67-401 to 67-467 (Reissue 2009 & Cum.”
Dick v. Koski Prof. Grp., 307 Neb. 599 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “At the same time, the former vice president did not give up his 50-percent control over the corporation and continued to express an interest as a shareholder in its ongoing affairs.”
Dick v. Koski Prof. Grp., 950 N.W.2d 321 (Neb. 2020). · cites it 2× “At the same time, the former vice president did not give up his 50-percent control over the corporation and continued to express an interest as a shareholder in its ongoing affairs. When the other shareholders and the former vice president could not reach an agreement as to the…”
Sebade v. Sebade, 28 N.W.3d 19 (Neb. 2025). · cites it 2× “40 A civil conspiracy is actionable only if the alleged conspirators actually committed some underlying misconduct. 41 That is, a conspiracy is not a separate and independent tort in itself; rather, it depends upon the existence of an underlying tort.”
Elting v. Elting, 288 Neb. 404 (2014). · cites it 2× “ANALYSIS The legal framework for our analysis is Nebraska’s Uniform Partnership Act of 1998 (1998 UPA), found at Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 67-401 to 67-467 (Reissue 2009), as well as the terms of the Partnership Agreement.”
Mogensen Bros. Land & Cattle Co. v. Mogensen, 952 N.W.2d 688 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Brief for appellant at 19. However, Steven’s reliance on Weyh is misplaced.”
Robertson v. Jacobs Cattle Co., No. S-13-860 (Neb. Aug. 15, 2014). · cites it 2× “First Appeal As discussed in our previous opinion in this case,2 prior to adoption of the Uniform Partnership Act of 1998,3 dissolu- tion and winding up of an at-will partnership was required upon any partner’s expressed will to dissolve the partnership.”
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.