Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-101 (2026)

Chapter definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this chapter:

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 695,s 8, eff. 7/1/2024.

Acts 2001, ch. 353; 2010 , ch. 741, § 48; 2010 , ch. 742, §§ 8, 9.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Moran v. Willensky, 339 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Moran v. Willensky, 339 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Partnership Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 61-1-101 et seq., the trial court awarded Appellee project costs, and winding up costs, including attorney’s fees.”
Frank Ray Baggett v. Anne Marie Baggett, 422 S.W.3d 537 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “Taken together, Husband’s first several issues stem from his core position that A & F is a partnership and should have been treated as such under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 61-1-101 et seq. (2002 & Supp.”
Tanner v. Whiteco, L.P., 337 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “§ 61-2-101 (8) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-101 (6). In the absence of any evidence concerning a partner for Mr.”
Story v. Lanier, 166 S.W.3d 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 61-1-101(6) (2003). Our Supreme Court, in a case factually similar to the one presently before the Court, stated: In determining whether one is a partner, no one fact or circumstance may be pointed to as a conclusive test, but each case must be decided upon…”
In Re Est. of Price, 273 S.W.3d 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “We will consider Plaintiffs’ claim of error regarding the partnership issue before reviewing the remaining evidence presented during the second hearing. The Revised Uniform Partnership Act defines a “partnership” generally as “an association of two (2) or more persons to carry…”
Haney v. Copeland (In Re Copeland), 291 B.R. 740 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2003). “§ 61-1-101(6) (2002). In this case, predecessor law is that existing in 1999, when the sale of HCC’s assets occurred.”
McLemore v. Olson (In Re B & L Labs., Inc.), 62 B.R. 494 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986). · cites it 2× “It is unnecessary to the creation of a partnership that the business relation entered into, which constitutes it, be called by that name.”
Via v. Oehlert, 347 S.W.3d 224 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “2004) (citing Tenn.Code Ann. § 61-1-101(6) (2003)). Our supreme court has explained: In determining whether one is a partner, no one fact or circumstance may be pointed to as a conclusive test, but each case must be decided upon consideration of all relevant facts, actions, and…”
Jenkins v. Schmank (In re Schmank), 535 B.R. 243 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2015). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 61-1-101 et seq. (“RUPA”) states that partners owe each other fiduciary duties of loyalty and care.”
Starnes Fam. Off., LLC v. McCullar, 765 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (W.D. Tenn. 2011). “§ 61-1-101(6). A partnership is formed when at least two people “place their money, assets, labor, or skill in commerce with the understanding that profits will be shared between them.”
Montgomery v. Montgomery, 181 S.W.3d 720 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-101 (6). Our Supreme Court provided further guidance in Bass v.”
In Re Taylor & Assocs., L.P., 191 B.R. 374 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1996). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 61-1-101 to 61-2-1208 (1989 & Supp.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-101(5) — 1 case
McLemore v. Olson (In Re B & L Labs., Inc.), 62 B.R. 494 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986). “It is unnecessary to the creation of a partnership that the business relation entered into, which constitutes it, be called by that name.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-101(6) — 10 cases
Moran v. Willensky, 339 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “Pursuant to the Tennessee Uniform Partnership Act, Tenn.Code Ann. § 61-1-101 et seq., the trial court awarded Appellee project costs, and winding up costs, including attorney’s fees.”
Story v. Lanier, 166 S.W.3d 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). “” Tenn.Code Ann. § 61-1-101(6) (2003). Our Supreme Court, in a case factually similar to the one presently before the Court, stated: In determining whether one is a partner, no one fact or circumstance may be pointed to as a conclusive test, but each case must be decided upon…”
Tanner v. Whiteco, L.P., 337 S.W.3d 792 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010). “§ 61-2-101 (8) and Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-101 (6). In the absence of any evidence concerning a partner for Mr.”
In Re Est. of Price, 273 S.W.3d 113 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008). “We will consider Plaintiffs’ claim of error regarding the partnership issue before reviewing the remaining evidence presented during the second hearing. The Revised Uniform Partnership Act defines a “partnership” generally as “an association of two (2) or more persons to carry…”
Haney v. Copeland (In Re Copeland), 291 B.R. 740 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2003). “§ 61-1-101(6) (2002). In this case, predecessor law is that existing in 1999, when the sale of HCC’s assets occurred.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 61-1-101(7) — 1 case
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.