Sec. 152.052. RULES FOR DETERMINING IF PARTNERSHIP IS CREATED. (a) Factors indicating that persons have created a partnership include the persons':
(1) receipt or right to receive a share of profits of the business;
(2) expression of an intent to be partners in the business;
(3) participation or right to participate in control of the business;
(4) agreement to share or sharing:
(A) losses of the business; or
(B) liability for claims by third parties against the business; and
(5) agreement to contribute or contributing money or property to the business.
(b) One of the following circumstances, by itself, does not indicate that a person is a partner in the business:
(1) the receipt or right to receive a share of profits as payment:
(A) of a debt, including repayment by installments;
(B) of wages or other compensation to an employee or independent contractor;
(C) of rent;
(D) to a former partner, surviving spouse or representative of a deceased or disabled partner, or transferee of a partnership interest;
(E) of interest or other charge on a loan, regardless of whether the amount varies with the profits of the business, including a direct or indirect present or future ownership interest in collateral or rights to income, proceeds, or increase in value derived from collateral; or
(F) of consideration for the sale of a business or other property, including payment by installments;
(2) co-ownership of property, regardless of whether the co-ownership:
(A) is a joint tenancy, tenancy in common, tenancy by the entirety, joint property, community property, or part ownership; or
(B) is combined with sharing of profits from the property;
(3) the right to share or sharing gross returns or revenues, regardless of whether the persons sharing the gross returns or revenues have a common or joint interest in the property from which the returns or revenues are derived; or
(4) ownership of mineral property under a joint operating agreement.
(c) An agreement by the owners of a business to share losses is not necessary to create a partnership.
Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 182, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2006.
Notes of Decisions
Metroplexcore, LLC v. Parsons Transp., Inc., 743 F.3d 964 (5th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 5× “3d at 913 ; see Tex. Bus. ORG.Code § 152.052(a)(3). It pointed to evidence that it had a “management role” in the operation, but the evidence shows that for Phase I, Metroplex-Core would manage certain aspects of the project; the record does not contain evidence that…”
Ingram v. Deere, 288 S.W.3d 886 (Tex. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Compare TEX. BUS. ORGS.CODE § 152.052, with TEX.REV.”
Eagle TX I SPE, L.L.C. v. Sharif & Munir Enter., Inc., 602 F. App'x 576 (5th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 3× “The district court applied Texas partnership law, which, under Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 152.052 , primarily looks to *579 five non-exclusive factors which might “indicate] that persons have created a partnership”: (1) receipt or right to receive a share of profits of the…”
Garcia v. Lucero, 366 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Bus. ORGS. Code Ann. § 152.052 (a) (West Supp.”
Edward Malone v. Firdosh Patel, 397 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012).
“Compare Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code Ann. § 152.052(a)(Vernon 2012), with Tex.”
Advanced Nano Coatings, Inc. v. Joseph Hana, 478 F. App'x 838 (5th Cir. 2012).
“Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code § 152.052(a). 2 With respect to the first of the above-quoted five factors, in his deposition, Hugh Scott testified that Hanafin had a twenty-five percent interest in the IAG partnership, which indicates that Hanafin had a right to receive a share of IAG’s…”
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(5): 1 case
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(a): 19 cases
Edward Malone v. Firdosh Patel, 397 S.W.3d 658 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012).
“Compare Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code Ann. § 152.052(a)(Vernon 2012), with Tex.”
Garcia v. Lucero, 366 S.W.3d 275 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012).
“See Tex. Bus. ORGS. Code Ann. § 152.052 (a) (West Supp.”
Advanced Nano Coatings, Inc. v. Joseph Hana, 478 F. App'x 838 (5th Cir. 2012).
“Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code § 152.052(a). 2 With respect to the first of the above-quoted five factors, in his deposition, Hugh Scott testified that Hanafin had a twenty-five percent interest in the IAG partnership, which indicates that Hanafin had a right to receive a share of IAG’s…”
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(a)(1): 3 cases
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(a)(2): 2 cases
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(a)(3): 2 cases
Metroplexcore, LLC v. Parsons Transp., Inc., 743 F.3d 964 (5th Cir. 2014).
“3d at 913 ; see Tex. Bus. ORG.Code § 152.052(a)(3). It pointed to evidence that it had a “management role” in the operation, but the evidence shows that for Phase I, Metroplex-Core would manage certain aspects of the project; the record does not contain evidence that…”
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(a)(4)(B): 1 case
Metroplexcore, LLC v. Parsons Transp., Inc., 743 F.3d 964 (5th Cir. 2014).
“3d at 913 ; see Tex. Bus. ORG.Code § 152.052(a)(3). It pointed to evidence that it had a “management role” in the operation, but the evidence shows that for Phase I, Metroplex-Core would manage certain aspects of the project; the record does not contain evidence that…”
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(a)(5): 1 case
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(b): 4 cases
Metroplexcore, LLC v. Parsons Transp., Inc., 743 F.3d 964 (5th Cir. 2014).
“3d at 913 ; see Tex. Bus. ORG.Code § 152.052(a)(3). It pointed to evidence that it had a “management role” in the operation, but the evidence shows that for Phase I, Metroplex-Core would manage certain aspects of the project; the record does not contain evidence that…”
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(b)(1): 1 case
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(b)(1)(B): 1 case
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(b)(2): 1 case
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(b)(2)(B): 2 cases
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(b)(3): 1 case
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(b)(4): 1 case
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 152.052(c): 4 cases
Metroplexcore, LLC v. Parsons Transp., Inc., 743 F.3d 964 (5th Cir. 2014).
“3d at 913 ; see Tex. Bus. ORG.Code § 152.052(a)(3). It pointed to evidence that it had a “management role” in the operation, but the evidence shows that for Phase I, Metroplex-Core would manage certain aspects of the project; the record does not contain evidence that…”
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.