Minnesota Supreme Court, 1910

Jokela v. Jokela

Jokela v. Jokela
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided July 15, 1910 · Jaggard, Rrown
111 Minn. 403; 127 N.W. 391; 1910 Minn. LEXIS 725 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

O. J. Larson and M. B. Louisell, for appellant., M. J. Laly, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1947, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Jokela v. Jokela

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Jaggard, L.

This is an action for an absolute divorce. The court found that the defendant treated the plaintiff in a cruel and inhuman manner, and awarded plaintiff $4,600 and the care and custody of three minor children. From the judgment entered accordingly, defendant appeals.

*404Plaintiff was twenty-seven years of age; defendant, sixty-seven. The oldest of the three children was aged three years. Plaintiff testified that she had known defendant for only half a week before she married him. It must be here assumed that these and other circumstances did not justify defendant in charging her, as he did, with unchastity, and, for example, with looking for an opportunity to have illegal intercourse with the hired man. His language to her was at times otherwise abusive. There were other acts of cruelty •on his part, which would have abundantly justified the action of the trial court, if this were all there were to the case. Her language, however, was much coarser than his own. She was guilty of cruelty on her part. She assaulted him, it appears practically without contradiction, in a manner which attained the limits of disgusting indecency. Propriety precludes the detailed narration of her misconduct, indescribable and insufferable. She showed wrong on his part; but the record demonstrates that she was in no position to complain.

Reversed.

Dissenting Opinion

Rrown, J.

(dissenting).

In my opinion, the trial judge, having had the parties before him, was in a better position to determine the propriety of a divorce than this court, and his conclusion should not be disturbed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.