Top 10 Dumbest Cases on Judge Judy

This case is about a burnt up couch, but it’s really more about post-breakup bitterness. To Judge Judy’s annoyance, these two exes and former roommates decide to have an actual argument right there in the courtroom. The defendant says her ex is probably responsible for the burn marks on the couch because the plaintiff is a fire dancer. They trade low-blows and adolescent jabs at each other until Judge Judy finally throws them both out. The only thing more surprising about this case is that the judge didn’t get tired of their amateur theatrics sooner. While they do return later on, they still have quite a bit of trouble with what is appropriate courtroom behavior.

Even Judge Judy knows a stupid and vindictive lawsuit when she sees one. Plaintiff Lisa Reid sues her friend, Barbara Loth, for breaking her toilet. But the judge insists that unless Loth was negligent or malicious in breaking the toilet, it’s not her fault. Things break. It’s not just an example of a dumb and time-wasting lawsuit, but the plaintiff is also a shockingly terrible host and friend. Frankly, the entire lawsuit seems like an attempt to embarrass her former friend. The judge can’t help but make sure Reid knows just how idiotic her position is before dismissing the case nearly as soon as it began.

A fight ensued after defendant Valencia Carroll asked her mother and stepfather to raise her friend’s infant for a while. Carroll walks into Judge Judy’s courtroom knowing her point of view is indefensible. She even tries to lie, which is never a great strategy with Sheindlin. She seems totally incapable of understanding what a huge ask that is, and why her stepdad has every right to say no. The judge tries to explain that this isn’t a pet, it’s an actual human child. Sheindlin doesn’t believe her side of the story about how her parents’ property was damaged, and ultimately rules in their favor. What can be said about a case like this? Some people just live in their own special world.

Plaintiff Joshua Pritchard sought a restraining order when his girlfriend’s brother-in-law assaulted him over money Pritchard and his girlfriend stole. But it seems like Pritchard is the one who continued to be the aggressor, as he got a job at the defendant’s favorite casino. He’s suing over an incident where the defendant made eye contact with him at work. It makes his case for a violated protective order seem more like a cash grab than a genuine attempt to get justice. Well, Judge Judy isn’t having it. You know something’s up when the person with the protective order against them comes away looking like the innocent one.

An after-school pickup accident could’ve turned into a tragedy at a different speed. Plaintiff Robin Brook was picking up her elementary school-aged children when another parent’s young daughter ran into her slowly moving vehicle. The young girl broke her collarbone and Brook’s mirror. This should have been a case where everyone was just happy nothing worse happened. But, of course not. Brook wants $600 for her broken side mirror. The judge, while not thrilled with the girl’s carelessness, thinks the plaintiff is outrageous to be suing. Even if the child wasn’t crossing where she was supposed to, Judge Judy maintains that Brook, the adult, was driving in a school zone and should have been more vigilant.

When life gives you lemons, make deer stew… Or something. In this classic case, two sisters end up in court over the defendant having hit a deer with the plaintiff’s car. The deer died, and the defendant decided to haul it home and cook it. Well, waste not, want not. But the plaintiff wasn’t interested in accepting what she hilariously calls rigor mortis stew in lieu of payment. The fact that the defendant thinks she has no culpability in this, and even thought this was a reasonable form of repayment is a kind of unhinged that only classic “Judge Judy” can give us.

To hear plaintiff Karina Roy describe her case for assault, you’d think she’d survived a war. But no, it was a roommate dispute which led to the weaponization of a collection of Tupperware containers. The judge tries her best to hear this case without being too demeaning but, at a certain point, it seems inevitable. Roy’s theatrics and elaborate recounting of events are the definition of extra. No one in the room can quite believe the dissonance between the relatively benign story and the flamboyant way she’s telling it. Any of this being taken seriously as an assault seems out of the question.

Even the judge admits this case is a waste of time and resources. She’s clear that she’s just entertaining it because they are making a TV show, and TV is supposed to be entertaining after all. This is probably not what plaintiff Carlos Campos wants to hear. His $5,000 lawsuit over a haircut that was too short became a pretext for a priceless Judge Judy skewering. It’s either hubris, vanity, or complete stupidity that brought him here. That he walks out with a $10 refund for his haircut at all seems like way more than he deserves.

Plaintiff Tracy Martin’s confusing and eccentric ad about giving away her bird is only the first in a series of bizarre behaviors. Apparently, she forgot to add the clause in her newspaper ad that says giving away the bird comes with the stipulation that she gets to oversee the new owner’s treatment of the bird for as long as she wants. After months in his new home, Tracy Martin thinks she can take the bird back herself. Her actions are approaching harassment at this point, but she can’t get beyond her strange crusade as the humanly representative for all birdkind. Nothing the judge says seems to get through to her.

Aw we just love it when crooks slip up. The case itself would appear pretty simple on paper. Plaintiff Ginny Paradeza alleges defendants Samuel and Steven McQuay stole her backpack, along with all the items in it. She knows this to be true based on surveillance camera footage. They two boys try, and fail, to fool the judge, saying they aren’t responsible because they physically didn’t take the bag. She’s already ripped into them and is ruling for the plaintiff when something so beautiful happens. This one comment totally sinks any credibility they have left. It’s an all-time classic “Judge Judy” moment, and a testament to instant karma.