Winding Up Partnership Affairs

13 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States & Robert E. Grant v. Hankins
  581 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-03 ·cited 23×
  Partnership records, even those created after a partner's death and before formal dissolution, are not protected by the Fifth Amendment from IRS subpoenas, as the surviving partner acts in a fiduciary capacity. A district court order enforcing a summons is not subject to reconsid
• United States v. Saks
  964 F.2d 1514· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence supported a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) for obtaining money by false pretenses, not § 1344(1) for defrauding a financial institution.
• Filesi v. United States
  352 F.2d 339· 4th Cir.· 1965-10-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that statements made by a former partner after dissolution of the partnership are inadmissible as admissions against the other partners unless made during the winding up of affairs. The court also held that such statements are not admissible as declarations against
• Wiese v. Elroy G. Wiese
  107 So. 2d 208· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-12-12 ·cited 10×
  In this partnership dissolution case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed in part and reversed in part the chancellor's decree dividing partnership assets between Elroy G. Wiese (plaintiff) and Edwin G. and Norma M. Wiese (defendants). The court held that certain partne
• William Skillings & Assocs. v. Cunard Transp., Ltd.
  594 F.2d 1078· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-14 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a release executed by a partnership did not satisfy a judgment entered in favor of individual partners, and the judgment debtors' attempt to have the judgment marked satisfied was untimely.
• Pettigrew & Bailey v. Cecyl L. Pickle
  429 So. 2d 340· Fla. 3d DCA· 1983-03-08 ·cited 8×
  Pettigrew & Bailey, a dissolved law firm, sued Pickle and Anthony for malicious prosecution and abuse of process arising from a third-party complaint filed after the partnership dissolved. The court affirmed summary judgment, holding that a release executed by a partner during wi
• Cohen v. Lansburgh
  366 So. 2d 154· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-01-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Cohen Estate was liable for its proportionate share of operating expenses and that attorney fees were properly awarded, affirming the trial court's decision.
• Parker Waichman LLP v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
  288 So. 3d 726· Fla. 4th DCA· 2019-10-02 ·cited 2×
  Parker Waichman LLP appeals a trial court order discharging its charging lien and awarding it quantum meruit fees instead of the full contingency fee in a tobacco litigation case. The firm sought the entire contingency fee earned after its associate attorney Jordan Chaikin depart
• Walker Int'l Corp. v. United States
  554 F.2d 464· C.C.P.A.· 1977-05-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Customs Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for lack of prosecution and denying the motion for rehearing.
• VAN Andel v. Theoren Charles Smith
  248 F.2d 915· 10th Cir.· 1957-10-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a partner induced into a partnership by fraud remains liable to third-party creditors for debts incurred during the partnership's existence, but the partnership's adjudication as bankrupt may be set aside if the petitioning creditors' debts do not meet statuto
• Reed v. Beals
  77 Fla. 801· Fla.· 1919-05-31 ·cited 2×
  This case involves a partnership dispute where one partner sought dissolution and winding up of partnership affairs through a bill in chancery. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's interlocutory order appointing a receiver to manage partnership property during dis
• In re Phillips v. First City
  966 F.2d 926· 5th Cir.· 1992-07-02
  A bankrupt partner lacks the authority under Texas law to file a voluntary Chapter 11 petition on behalf of a partnership, and federal bankruptcy law does not preempt this state law restriction.
• Delfin v. Harry Liss & Assocs., Inc.
  365 F.2d 74· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-25
  A partner can be held liable for debts incurred after dissolution if the transaction was appropriate for winding up partnership affairs or completing unfinished business.