Top 30 Quickest Cases on Judge Judy

Judge Sheindlin doesn’t mince words. From the top of this case about a cracked iPhone screen, she’s so bored she can’t even contain herself. Plaintiff Michael Arter alleges that defendant Speen Khan broke his phone while roughhousing. But between the fact that the plaintiff was intoxicated at the time and that the crack in the screen is too miniscule to warrant a lawsuit, she’s less than interested. Arter tries to argue that this has affected the way the phone works. Unfortunately for him, the judge is beyond done with this case.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
Not my favorite case: https://youtu.be/7V46Kr4sRPo?si=NPIZ1r9rkaTRu1Bt&t=24
I don’t care: https://youtu.be/7V46Kr4sRPo?si=Lh0xjPF9PwaLMDcb&t=58
The crack: https://youtu.be/7V46Kr4sRPo?si=ZcCc8kYgw5d0ymSi&t=147

It’s rare that Judge Judy completely changes her verdict at the last minute. But it’s usually when a litigant says something really, really stupid. Plaintiff Mary Phillips took an offer for a vacuum demonstration. The result is a burn hole in the floor from a heat lamp the defendants used in her home. They insist that their heat lamp was not responsible for the damage. At first, Judge Judy is only going to award Phillips a fraction of what she’s suing for. That is until defendant David Byrum accidentally contradicts his wife’s testimony, admitting the heat lamp did touch the floor for a few seconds. They pay dearly for their dishonesty.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
Lamp: https://youtu.be/WYNe8lhPvvY?si=HLn7KuZtGNPkXPqJ&t=113
Never made a hole: https://youtu.be/WYNe8lhPvvY?si=ChdHf18wdfWuWJ9D&t=67
It touches the floor: https://youtu.be/WYNe8lhPvvY?si=gc1QcJnvI-dZIeZL&t=197

You know things are going to get interesting when the judge makes a phone call. These litigants can’t agree on the circumstances of this car accident. The defendant is already in hot water over driving without insurance, but it’s Judge Judy’s call to the witness that puts the final nail in his coffin. Once she has all the facts, she hands the defendant his own head on a platter and has a great time doing it. She doesn’t even listen to the amount the plaintiff is asking for. She just awards her the $5,000 maximum.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
No insurance: https://youtu.be/M3bwg9UIrps?si=N4HF49XpOitYnci7&t=126
You have made my day so much easier: https://youtu.be/M3bwg9UIrps?si=q-Hd_tKk7FVQIpBz&t=204
This idiot: https://youtu.be/M3bwg9UIrps?si=HJBLDIypi753wkcF&t=216
YOU got impatient: https://youtu.be/M3bwg9UIrps?si=yGGlUiJvWRE267eN&t=259

Lots of bad decisions had to be made to make this case possible. An 8-year-old really shouldn’t be driving anything besides a bike. Someone should tell that to these defendants. Kris Biser allowed a friend’s child to drive her golf cart, and he ran right into a neighbor’s shed, destroying it. Biser, who owns the cart and was in it with the child at the time, does not think she is responsible. That’s not how Judge Judy sees it. There’s really no way the defendants can get out of this one. They are going to pay to have the shed rebuilt, it’s just a question of how much.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
You let him drive: https://youtu.be/uDgMVYpHn24?si=01JsNXGUm36XCUeF&t=65
He didn’t straighten the cart: https://youtu.be/uDgMVYpHn24?si=vLofV9YQmCw6wNnp&t=125
He hit the shed: https://youtu.be/uDgMVYpHn24?si=1NmksbMZotzkjv1F&t=149

Plaintiff Phyllis Charde doesn’t start things off on the right foot. She’s come to the court because her friend sold a car she paid for without her permission. The only trouble is Charde had to put that car in the defendant’s name. Judge Judy susses out very quickly that there’s a reason the plaintiff couldn’t have the vehicle in her name. Charde is not legally allowed to own one. To award her any money would be to uphold her illegal activities. It may be a TV court show, but Judge Judy’s not interested in helping scammers carry out their scams.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
Not allowed: https://youtu.be/IyCtWQsIqAg?si=loRr9RMcdwWs0lg5&t=68
Not allowed x2: https://youtu.be/IyCtWQsIqAg?si=nV7otYSP9nABwPnp&t=103
Court’s aren’t gonna help you: https://youtu.be/IyCtWQsIqAg?si=TlWJU5c8UEQ424kb&t=154
Got what you deserved: https://youtu.be/IyCtWQsIqAg?si=bwvSBGL6KSA8JpIh&t=199

The plaintiff in this case is suing her ex-fiancé for unpaid loans and the cost of a wedding dress she’s still making payments on. Here’s the problem. The defendant is already married to someone else. His excuses are all over the place. Judge Judy swiftly lets this guy know she doesn’t buy any of his baloney about why the cheque he wrote bounced. As if Judge Judy hasn’t already heard every excuse in the book. She dispenses some of her trademark wit and hard truths to both of them before ruling in the plaintiff’s favor.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
Because he’s married: https://youtu.be/6SrqOZ-wjmA?si=trvVLvgiE9cLbBF2&t=55
Don’t try to out think me, sir: https://youtu.be/6SrqOZ-wjmA?si=bk6R4du4XsfWOaea&t=124
You sound so ridiculous: https://youtu.be/6SrqOZ-wjmA?si=UHHXJdSJAJZr5rJU&t=166
All the excuses: https://youtu.be/6SrqOZ-wjmA?si=njY7CJqj4n6Xv5fS&t=176
Advice for the plaintiff: https://youtu.be/6SrqOZ-wjmA?si=-RiRO4gpqiq6ZFOS&t=208

Sometimes, neighbors make the worst enemies. In this case, plaintiff Bob Ketcherside is angry over the defendant’s choice of paint for their shared fence. Meanwhile, Ketcherside can’t even see that side of the fence from his house or yard. Things got tense between them, and they landed in court. This is clearly a case of a litigant having too much time on his hands. The defendant, by the way, doesn’t even need to say a word the whole time. The plaintiff does a great job of looking foolish all on his own – though he does get a little help from the judge.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
Color he wanted: https://youtu.be/iKLAA6nnb5Q?si=I1vjUeJdwpthPeBT&t=27
Baloney: https://youtu.be/iKLAA6nnb5Q?si=SnpSJftRFAcJ4BMk&t=77
Answer my question!: https://youtu.be/iKLAA6nnb5Q?si=-rmdkD_urJsRHqTn&t=115
The only way you can see this color: https://youtu.be/iKLAA6nnb5Q?si=ckrDsVpIQWQsJYmS&t=125
You’re insulting my mother: https://youtu.be/jEyM3M4j5KI?si=p2IdwDQQ0Hdjff7l&t=176

There are some people who can’t even fess up to wrongdoing when the evidence is plain as day. Here, defendant Joeffre Kolosky is willing to tell Judge Judy right to her face that he did not back into the plaintiff’s car, even when presented with clear video of him doing just that. He insists he just hit the reserved parking sign in front of it. Well, that’s not untrue. But he also most definitely hit both the sign and the car. It seems he wants everyone to believe that dinky little signpost made the plaintiff’s entire car move, but anyone who sees the footage is clear on what happened.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
Video: https://youtu.be/aF8ESthxjsM?si=bMQcmcvrJ0v61zws&t=105
Wanna see it again?: https://youtu.be/aF8ESthxjsM?si=ob58EoOmEwtlll7G&t=114
I knew what I hit: https://youtu.be/aF8ESthxjsM?si=_jcZXMl3lg3Zfo2O&t=141

The judge is already set to rule for the plaintiff. He’s suing for damages from a car crash, where the defendant struck him. The defendant was the one with the stop sign, so it’s pretty cut and dry. When the plaintiff’s witness begins speaking out of turn, however, that’s when things really kick off. Discussion about the actual accident is completely sidetracked as she spends most of this brief case lecturing the two unruly men on the law, and the problems of driving without insurance. Sometimes, you have to wonder if she’s just toying with people for our amusement. It’s so satisfying to watch her let these two have it.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
You had no insurance: https://youtu.be/myTdH-j5pUU?si=WVJ25DBkDeysMjs3&t=58
Witness: https://youtu.be/myTdH-j5pUU?si=HrCmILHTb1avbWh6&t=153
Chris… Chris… Chris… Chris…: https://youtu.be/myTdH-j5pUU?si=8WUBUc6f845-Zokt&t=204
That’s irrelevant: https://youtu.be/myTdH-j5pUU?si=6jVb4kcJbDE7chsC&t=213
Put him out: https://youtu.be/myTdH-j5pUU?si=E9DJ9_z_EXb4po-s&t=224

Litigants in Judge Judy’s courtroom often try to call “B.S.” on the other one. But they usually don’t just say the word outright. That’s exactly what plaintiff Raven Miyamoto did in this case about a college roommate arrangement gone wrong. The judge was already over these two young women from the moment they started talking about “past traumas.” But then they got into a verbal spat right in the courtroom. Miyamoto not only says the word, she repeats it for the judge without apology. Avoiding profanity in Judge Judy’s courtroom is probably the bare minimum, and Miyamoto can’t even clear it. She tosses them out like two spoiled children.

Sources: b-roll

CBS
Past trauma: https://youtu.be/SYhvSaL1AkA?si=pcGri5Qy3XxqxJM7&t=147
Jealous: https://youtu.be/SYhvSaL1AkA?si=AOkmC7_6u_moe9gS&t=176
Bullshit/Goodbye: https://youtu.be/SYhvSaL1AkA?si=dx0QTxkH64CMzKW5&t=180
I have a countersuit: https://youtu.be/SYhvSaL1AkA?si=s1mxFsHrdv2avWxD&t=195

Kim Knowler is pretty upset that the defendant canceled the reservation he made with her motorcycle rental business. Luckily for her, she was able to keep the money he tried to have refunded. Now she basically wants more compensation for the inconvenience. Knowler has a no refunds policy. We know that because she keeps saying it, over and over, even when the judge is talking. The first rule of “Judge Judy” is don’t talk over Judge Judy. But she doesn’t seem to care. The judge already has it in for her over her business practices, but it doesn’t take long for Knowler’s case to be dismissed due to her sheer inability to stay quiet.

This defendant rented a cabin for several days and decided she didn’t have to pay. Her reasoning is pretty solid (not). The zip line she and her family wanted to use was not open for business. Somehow, that’s the cabin owners’ fault? So she’s decided she deserves a full refund because their ad mentioned there was zip lining nearby. The judge, and anyone with half a brain, does not agree. Sheindlin courteously gives the defendant a chance to explain herself before poking holes in her entire argument. In fact, it might have been kinder for her to just rule against her case outright. Instead, Sheindlin makes sure to promptly make a fool out of her before issuing any ruling.

Judge Judy is known for many things. Being sweet is not necessarily one of them. In the earlier days of her show, she presides over this case between exes fighting about a dog. Knowing she can’t come up with a solution that would make both of them happy, she comes up with a little prompt creative justice. At this point, the pup is living with the defendant. So as a compromise, she decides to give the plaintiff a brand new dog she found by scouring the paper. As soon as the man sees and subsequently holds the animal, you can clearly see his heart melt. It all unfolds relatively quickly, but is also a show of heartwarming generosity from TV’s harshest arbitrator.

Right at the top, the judge makes it known she’s skeptical of whatever these two litigants have going on. The case is ostensibly about money owed for an international trip. She chooses her words very carefully. Then, the judge starts interrogating the defendant about what he had been up to since he got into town. It seems like she knows something about what the men had been doing the prior night, and is trying to suss it out. Whether or not the case is real or fabricated for a free trip to Los Angeles, Sheindlin is clearly having a great time making the litigants squirm a bit before sending them on their way.

After her friend crashed her car, the plaintiff sues for her deductible. But what Judge Judy takes issue with is that she’s suing for well over the deductible amount. You see, the plaintiff wants her ex-friend to help pay for a brand new car, and even claims she has texts to prove they had an agreement to that effect. But, of course, the texts end up saying nothing about this ridiculous sounding deal. If you’re going to bring evidence, make sure it proves what you say it proves. Otherwise, you’re just going to irritate the judge, and she’ll quickly make her ruling.

As soon as we hear it’s going to be a case that involves matching couple tattoos, we know Judge Judy is going to be her understanding and compassionate self. Of course, the whole reason these two are in court is because the relationship didn’t work out. Already questioning their judgment, she goes about things pretty brutally, and swiftly, from then on as she asks about owed furniture money. But between the defendant’s new girlfriend speaking out of turn and his less than becoming language over text message, Judge Judy figures out which side she was on pretty quickly. The actual case is over in less than five minutes.

There are a lot of topics Judge Judy has very strong opinions about. Responsible dog ownership is one of them. So, when she essentially makes it clear that this plaintiff has no cause of action against the dog owner defendant, you know she believes it 100 percent. The plaintiff was watching the defendant’s dog for her, and the pet was unruly, causing some damage to her home. She believes she’s owed, even though she was in charge of the animal at the time. The judge quickly shoots down her argument, but that doesn’t stop her from disagreeing. And if you’ve seen this show, you know how that’s gonna go.

In her younger and more patient days, the judge put up with a lot more disorderly conduct in her courtroom. While it may be plaintiff Charles Lanfried’s case, his witness and the defendant end up getting into a verbal back-and-forth that completely derails everything. It doesn’t take long for the snide remarks and insults to turn into full blown accusations of unflattering behavior. The judge awards Lanfried his money after less than 4 minutes, if only to get them all out of her hair. Still, the drama is far from over. Their heated exchange spills over into the hallway outside.

Judge Judy understands that the law is important, but so is good TV. If she wasn’t interested in entertaining us, she wouldn’t hear this case about someone so upset by his haircut that he’s suing for a whopping $5,000. The defendant simply cut Carlos Campos’ admittedly sparse head of hair too short. Campos seems to think it’s a matter of principle. Judge Judy thinks it’s a matter of stupidity and a desire to be on television. She skewers his lawsuit and his hairline in just a few minutes before sending him back home with only a $10 refund.

Plaintiff Shaughnessy Fahy has a lot to say. Even if the judge is talking, he thinks what he has to say is far more important. He has to point out every nuance of every detail of every fact of the case, even when it contradicts his own sworn statement. The worst thing is that he probably was wronged. However, he grates on the judge’s nerves so much that she flat out tells him she’s done with the case. And as quickly as it began, it’s over. When he realizes what’s happened, his incredulous response gives Judge Judy the opening for a brutal and efficient smackdown.

This is probably one of the saddest cases in “Judge Judy” history. The defendant is Jason Stemple, a person who is clearly going through withdrawal. He appears totally distraught, and physically unwell. He can barely string two words together, and the plaintiff is even forced to answer questions on his behalf. She also admits that he used money she had given him for a drug test to buy illicit substances instead. Judy quickly brings the case to an end in under 2 minutes by first telling Jason he needs help, then by offering to get him some if he wants it. It’s rare for Judy to show compassion in court, but it’s clear that this man needed to hear some harsh but reassuring words.

Let’s lighten the mood and watch the Judy we all know and love – the one who calls other people idiots. In this case, the plaintiff is suing Sandy Huynh for a $4,800 loan. He had co-signed the loan, the money of which was used for Sandy’s breast implants. However, the plaintiff - and friend (or perhaps, former friend now) says that Sandy hasn’t been making her payments, and Sandy says that she had considered the loan “a gift.” Of course, he doesn’t see it that way, and he wants his money. Judy absolutely annihilates Sandy and calls her an idiot before slapping her with the whole $4,800 bill. To top it all off, she states that Sandy shouldn’t have any more children, lest she spread her stupidity. Ouch.

Here’s a little tip for all you pranksters out there – if you break something, you have to pay for it. Even if it was an accident. Defendant Ashley Hunter pushed her friend Jennifer into a pool and broke her iPhone, and Jennifer wants to be compensated. Fair enough. However, Ashley refuses to pay because it was an accident and it “wasn’t malicious at all.” Of course, Judy isn’t having that ridiculous explanation and she bluntly ends the case by telling Ashley to “grow up” and own her mistakes. The whole thing ends with Ashley explaining rocket science to Judy…or trying to. Seeing as how the whole room exploded with laughter, we don’t think she succeeded.

Sometimes good intentions can land you in jail. This was almost the case for plaintiff Tracy Martin, who sold her pet parrot to the defendant. She later saw the parrot and believed that it was being neglected, as it didn’t have any toys and “looked horrible.” Judy stops the case dead in its tracks, because “courts don’t micromanage pets.” She also states that once a transaction is made, the seller has no further responsibility or say over the pet’s well-being. This is true for private affairs, and it’s also true for pet adoption centers. As such, Tracy has no case, and Judy even warns her of potential jail time if she continues in her well-meaning but naïve pursuit.

Oh, the things Judy has to hear. This case sees Jimmy Missry suing his friend Raphael Kassin for damaging his car. But this wasn’t just a simple “friend gets into an accident in his buddy’s car” case. No, it’s far wackier than that. The two had attended a party, and Raphael got jealous once he saw Jimmy kissing the woman he had been kissing earlier in the day. So he stole Jimmy’s car and hid it in a nearby park! Raphael eventually recovered the car, but Jimmy noticed some extensive damage, including dents, scratches, and a missing grill. Despite calling Jimmy a wise guy, Judy swiftly awards him $910, because you can’t just steal your friend’s car and hide it in a park.

There’s nothing like a good Judge Judy evisceration. Defendant Alexandra Nelson had harassed the plaintiff outside of his house and swore at five or six of his friends. The plaintiff retaliated by confronting them. But according to Alexandra, they were just “being dumb” and the plaintiff had no right to confront “two tiny women.” This ridiculous statement shocks Judy, who contorts her face and visibly recoils from the stupidity. She then calls Alexandra an idiot and a manipulative problem before slapping her with a $4,000 judgment. Maybe next time she’ll think about provoking people in front of their own houses - because if there’s one thing we learned here, it’s that silliness like that results in one swift court case.

This is one of the funniest cases in “Judge Judy” history. It sees Eve Dettenheim suing her own sister, Carol, over damages to her car. Carol had taken the car and hit a deer, causing $1,300 in damages. It sounds like a typical “Judge Judy” case, until you consider the finer details. Like the fact that Carol took the carcass home, made venison stew, and offered some to her sister. Or the wacky, sitcom-esque declarations, like Carol defensively stating that the venison “did not have rigor mortis!” Or the audience desperately trying to contain their laughter. It was like watching a “Judge Judy” parody on “SNL.” Needless to say, Carol was forced to pay the damages. Turns out venison stew doesn’t fix cars.

When Judy says “don’t get comfy,” you know a verbal smackdown is right around the corner. That’s exactly what happened when Brenda Powell sued her ex-roommate Angela Rust. Brenda was forced to move out of their shared apartment, and now she wants Angela to pay the difference between her new, more expensive apartment, and the apartment she shared with Angela. However, Judy destroys her confidence with four words – “that’s not a case.” She goes over a few of Brenda’s options before dismissing the case with a simple “goodbye.” The whole thing is over in two minutes, and it leaves Brenda in tears. We can’t say we blame her. We’d cry too if Judy eviscerated us like that.

Now what is small claims court for if you can’t sue your friend over a broken toilet? Lisa Reid believes that her friend, Barbara Loth, is responsible for her toilet because it cracked after Barbara sat on it. This whole ordeal is probably the most embarrassing thing that Barbara has ever gone through, and we feel terrible for her. And so does Judy. She quickly explains that the toilet broke while Barbara was using it – in other words, that Barbara did not intentionally break the toilet - before calling the case “stupid” and throwing it out. The audience claps and guffaws, and everyone goes home happy. Everyone except Lisa.

Judy must love it when the defendants do her job for her. In what is perhaps the most famous case in “Judge Judy” history, a man incriminates himself in a matter of seconds by indirectly admitting that he stole a woman’s purse. The plaintiff, Ginny Paradeza, lists some items that were stolen in the purse snatching, including her wallet, a calculator, and an earpiece. Or was there an earpiece? Not according to the defendant, who brilliantly states, “There was no earpiece in there, ma’am.” Everyone laughs in disbelief, Judy calls them dumb and dumber, and the plaintiff is awarded $500 for her troubles. Now if only all court cases could be that simple.





Which of these cases were you surprised to see end so quickly? Let us know in the comments.

CBS
We had fun: https://youtu.be/2L_oLfPp7Ys?si=Ovh1_ag1GSEF8NSm&t=288