Top 20 Most Unhinged Judge Judy Moments

Plaintiff Mitchell Urgenson sued the owner of a restaurant for vandalism. Apparently, his insistence that the restaurant gave him a credit for his entire meal because they once forgot his salad dressing did not go over well with the employees. Even though he was wronged, his pettiness about the salad dressing ate up most of the case, with Judge Judy being shockingly restrained for the first minute or so while she listened to this guy complain about not being able to eat his sandwich without dressing. Even though he technically won the case, the plaintiff was essentially laughed out of the courtroom. Some people will do anything for a freebie – including humiliating themselves on “Judge Judy.”

It’s safe to say that most people try to dress appropriately when they head to court out of respect. And one thing Judge Judy can’t stand is disrespect. The least someone can do is put on a nice shirt and tie when they walk into her courtroom. But the defendant in this case calls that being “fake.” Well, her witness – and husband – decided it would be wise to walk onto the set of one of the scariest TV judges in a T-shirt that said “beer equals fun.” His smug response, coupled with the defendant’s diatribe about fakeness, isn’t so much edgy as it is odd and kind of uncomfortable.

At least the defendant in this next case remembered to put on a decent shirt. However, his distracting behavior in the courtroom did him no favors. Judge Judy took him to task for laughing as he tried to recount the events of a drunken night out that ended with him damaging the plaintiff’s car. He’s having trouble following what the judge is even asking him. We can’t say for sure what exactly was up with this litigant that day, but between his uncontrollable laughing and his outlandish behavior, chances are it wasn’t fit for the courtroom. The judge gets in a few choice digs before ruling against him.

Mothers-in-law tend to get a bad rap. The plaintiff in this case doesn’t do much to help that. Judge Judy has no patience for people who stir the pot, and that’s exactly what she thinks the plaintiff is doing by antagonizing the ex-daughter-in-law she’s suing. The judge has no trouble sussing out the problem here. However, the woman will not listen to reason. She fights the judge every step of the way, and doesn’t want to take responsibility for her role in this tense family situation. Judge Judy’s parting shot as she leaves the bench is classic.

If you think Judge Judy’s courtroom is the place to make some sort of standup comedy debut, maybe think again. She won’t be afraid to call out your idiocy. The silence that falls across the courtroom when a man claiming to have ten kids makes an inappropriate and borderline nonsensical comment about the judge’s daughter is downright bone-chilling. That’s not a smart thing to do in front of a woman as powerful as her. His attempt to double-down on the lame comment only makes things worse. What’s remarkable is how Judge Judy keeps her composure while she dresses him down. And when she finally rules against him, the studio audience breaks out into applause – it’s not hard to see why.

Not even the crowd is safe from her wrath. That’s what one poor audience member learns when the judge finds his laugh a little too loud. At least, we think that was the issue she had! Off, we’d hate to be this guy — he looks like he just got yelled at by the teacher! You can tell he’s in shock and appears confused, and even tries to apologize. But it’s too late. The judge continues on with the case as if nothing happened. It just goes to show you, the only one allowed to be unhinged in Judge Judy’s courtroom is Judge Judy.

A dispute about a destroyed phone turns legendary when Judge Judy tries to explain how simple this case really is. The witness unexpectedly answers her rhetorical question about rocket science. While she isn't technically wrong, the fact that she replies at all is still monumentally ridiculous. And her complete confidence as she does so is almost pageant-like. The cherry on top is how she second guesses herself once everyone in the room falls apart with laughter. We feel bad though, it sounds like she was trying to be genuinely helpful? Needless to say, Judge Judy does not need a refresher on what rocket science is!

Look, if you’re going to insult someone in court, at least use a real word. Judge Judy sees through this young woman’s ridiculousness right away. While being grilled over an altercation she had with the plaintiff, the defendant justifies her behavior by calling him and his friends “loserds.” As if her entitlement wasn’t enough, her innovative insult doesn’t do her any favors with the judge. Even her mother is borderline red with embarrassment. Somehow though, it doesn’t end there. The young woman has a few things to say outside the courtroom, too. This is clearly not her day…

We gotta give this one points for sheer audacity. Kelli Filkins got in trouble over two cell phones she was supposedly selling on eBay. The plaintiff, who won those auctions, was shocked to receive two photos of the phones instead of the real thing. While her husband wriggled out of appearing in court, Filkins insists that it should have been clear to the plaintiff that she was actually paying over $400 for two pixelated pictures of the items she wanted. Yes, you heard us right – and yes, we know, it’s unhinged. Naturally, Judge Judy just isn’t having it, and really lets her have it. To say the whole thing quickly goes off the rails would be an understatement.

The judge probably knew this case would be simple, but not this simple. The plaintiff accuses the two defendants of stealing her wallet. When she begins listing off the things that were also taken, one of the co-defendants decides to make things much easier for everyone. Hearing that she’s missing an earpiece, he jumps in to state that there was no such item in the wallet. He seemingly doesn’t realize this is an admission of guilt. The judge is so amused she can’t even be mad. The two probably don’t even have time to realize what’s happening when she promptly rules against them. It remains one of Judge Judy’s quickest, wildest, and most unexpectedly hysterical cases.

Judge Judy has little patience for this hilariously brief case between two ex-roommates, and things do not end well for the plaintiff. Immediately after her case is dismissed, she starts sobbing as if on cue. If she thinks crying might change the judge’s mind, she must not have watched this show before. Her friend’s reaction as she rushes over to comfort her is just the cherry on top of this ridiculous ending. Considering how harsh the judge can be when she’s annoyed by a case, the plaintiff here is lucky she got off so easily.

Litigants are usually on their best behavior in court. They better be, because Judge Judy tolerates no disrespect. When the defendant in this case brings video of the plaintiff angrily kicking in her door and wrestling the phone out of her hands, the judge can see exactly how the alleged assault occurred. It’s a deeply uncomfortable moment. Even though the offending woman denies what everyone can clearly see, she can barely contain her anger toward the defendant and even the judge. Judge Judy simply isn’t having it. She has the video played again so everyone can see what happens when you don’t control your temper.

You have to be fourteen different shades of petty to sue your friend for breaking your toilet, but that’s exactly what this plaintiff did. Lisa Reid claims that her pal must pay for the receptacle because she was the last one who sat on it before it cracked. But that doesn’t sit well with Judge Judy or the audience, who can barely contain their laughter. That this plaintiff thinks she’s in the right for doing her former friend this way and trying to humiliate her on national TV is the height of arrogance. Luckily, Judge Judy knows just how to make a wrongheaded litigant look even more ridiculous.

We’ve seen a lot of interesting behavior in the “Judge Judy” courtroom, but we rarely see an interpretive dance. As Dr. Noel Howell lays out his case for the judge, he’s very serious and respectful of the court proceedings. So when he decides to add an impression of the plaintiff’s drunken antics into his testimony, it definitely surprises everyone. His dancing and shrill vocalizing bring the courtroom to hysterics, and even the witness can barely hold himself together afterward. One thing Judge Judy can always do without is a dramatic reenactment. She’ll just take the facts, please.

When Judge Judy asks the plaintiff in this case about her “adult novelty” business, she and the courtroom audience get an earful. If the cutesy, suggestive names for the products weren’t enough to make us squirm, the fact that one of them was returned without being cleaned is. Judge Judy covers her face in disgust, and we’re right there with her. By the time the plaintiff finishes listing all the missing and damaged items she’s suing for, the judge, the audience, and the viewing public know more than they ever cared to. Whether Judge Judy really didn’t know what “adult novelty” meant or she just knew the plaintiff’s explanation would make great TV, we thank her for asking.

You know your roommate’s bad when you end up on “Judge Judy” together. This case deals with a woman whose former roommate allegedly poured boiling water on her while she slept. Even though the plaintiff repeatedly denies any illicit substances were involved, her own evidence says otherwise. The woman’s repeated accusations that the responding cop is a “fugazi officer” alone confuses the judge. But the description of her injuries and the revelation of her apparent substance use is striking. Judge Judy seems genuinely concerned for the woman’s well-being, telling her that if she had been sober, the officers may have been able to arrest the defendant.

This next dispute involves two sisters and one very unlucky deer. When the defendant, Carol Dettenheim, hit a deer with her sister's car, she did the only sensible thing she could do. No she didn’t wait for authorities – instead, she made a meal out of the animal. Her sister, plaintiff Eve Dettenheim, says she declined her portion of the dinner. She explains that she didn’t want any “rigor mortis stew,” to which the defendant takes immediate offense. That both women can keep a straight face during this hilarious exchange is as unsettling as it is hilarious. This is just another day for them, but for us, it’s courtroom comedy gold.

In Judge Judy’s courtroom, judgment can be swift and merciless. That’s what plaintiff Caroline Fawcett finds out during this brief case about room and board fees for a horse she had leased to own. Clearly, Caroline doesn’t expect to lose this case, because her reaction when the judge rules against her is the stuff of bad community theater. While she leans over the podium like she’s about to have a massive coronary, the audience members behind her can do nothing but cringe at her histrionics. Some say if you walk the hallowed halls of the “Judge Judy” set, you can still hear her hyperventilating.

All hail Tupperware Lady. She’s a “Judge Judy” legend and for good reason. Plaintiff Karina Roy’s testimony includes a dramatic reenactment of a particularly savage tupperware attack. What makes this one so bizarre is the clear disconnect between her spirited retelling and the actual events she’s describing. It’d be hard for anyone to sell a tupperware attack as a traumatic event, but Roy’s wild gesticulations and aggressive finger-pointing don’t do her any favors. The studio audience behind her can barely keep it together, but the judge is completely unamused. Litigants should always remember that the only finger-pointing and yelling allowed in Judge Judy’s courtroom is her own!

Judge Judy has seen her fair share of delusional litigants, but this plaintiff really takes the cake. Wendy Moore’s 14-year-old son allowed a friend to drive her car, and they got into a wreck. The friend, another teenager, was tragically killed. Moore decided the best course of action was to sue the dead girl’s mother for damages and medical bills. That she would sue the grieving mom at all is bad enough, but the plaintiff seems to have no sympathy or guilt at all for her own role in the tragedy. The judge expresses her distaste for Moore’s unfeeling attitude, and sends her out of court with nothing but a tongue-lashing and a $5,000 judgment against her.