Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

McLaughlin v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal
189 Cal. Rptr. 479 (1983)


Facts

Thomas McLaughlin (plaintiff) and Linda McLaughlin had three children when they decided to divorce. The parties each moved the court for custody. Under California law, custody and visitation disputes were to be mediated before a judicial hearing was held. If the mediation was unsuccessful, the mediator could, but was not obligated to, make a custody or visitation recommendation to the court in accordance with local court rules. The Superior Court (defendant) with jurisdiction over the McLaughlin matter had implemented a local rule requiring mediators to make recommendations to the court in the event mediation were unsuccessful. In order to maintain the confidentiality of mediation proceedings, the mediators were not allowed to provide the bases for their recommendations. Nor were the parties allowed to cross-examine the mediator as to such bases. Courts in other counties established different rules regarding mediation recommendations. Prior to mediation in the McLaughlin case, Mr. McLaughlin moved the court for a protective order stating that, in the event mediation was unsuccessful, the mediator would be prohibited from providing a recommendation to the court unless cross-examination were allowed. The court denied Mr. McLaughlin’s motion because it was contrary to the local rule. Mr. McLaughlin sought a writ of mandate from the Supreme Court of California, which then asked the Court of Appeal to consider the constitutionality of the local rule.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Rattigan, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.