Line #7 Awesome/JudgeJudy


1	----
2	* Any time a litigant tries to go toe to toe with Judge Judy and gets quickly put in their place, as in this case involving a dispute over a refund from a canceled motorcycle rental. The plaintiff sunk her own case by contradicting her own testimony, then wouldn't shut up when the judge told her to be quiet.
3	-->'''Judge Judy:''' In answer to my question, you did say the dates were correct. Then you changed... ''[plaintiff opens mouth to talk]'' Don't speak. Then you changed it later when you saw the direction I was going in. That's number one. Number two: I asked you whether all 14 motorcycles were rented for that period of time - 26th, 27th, 28th. Your response to me, 'cause it's on tape, was, "No, they weren't, and he called pretty far in advance." So the second thing is that you suffered no damage as a result of his canceling, because the rest of your motorcycles weren't rented. He only rented ''one.'' ''[plantiff opens mouth again]'' I'm not finished yet.\
4	'''Plaintiff:''' I understand.\
5	'''Judge Judy:''' I'm not finished yet.\
6	'''Plaintiff:''' I understand.\
7	'''Judge Judy:''' So, if I were in business with a customer who had reserved and used my business before, three times...\
8	'''Plaintiff:''' That understood the [cancellation] policy.\
9	'''Judge Judy:''' Just a...\
10	'''Plaintiff:''' That understood the policy.\
11	'''Judge Judy:''' Goodbye. Your case is dismissed. We're done!\
12	'''Plaintiff:''' That's great.
13	* A very early case involved a young mother who sued her ex-husband's current girlfriend for defamation for allegedly distributing flyers accusing the plaintiff of child abuse. The plaintiff had just moved into the neighborhood where the flyers were distributed and was alerted to the flyers by her new neighbors. The defendant admitted to distributing the flyers but claimed she and the plaintiff's ex-husband did it out of concern for the plaintiff's children. It turned out the defendants had filed no fewer than ''three'' complaints against the plaintiff with Child Protective Services, and on each occasion the allegations were found to be without merit. Determining this to be a vindictive attempt to wrest custody of the kids away from the plaintiff since the ex-husband was upset he'd only been granted visitation with the kids instead of custody, Judge Judy unleashed the full force of her fury on the defendants.
14	--> '''Judge Judy:''' ''[holding up the flyer the defendant had distributed]'' THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! You are a mean, vindictive woman ... You didn't get what you want when you called Child Protective Services, they conduct no less than three investigations against her, they find absolutely no basis to remove the children, so you decide to make a little trouble, make her life a little bit miserable ... I wanna tell you something. If I were the family court judge, not a mediator, but if I were the family court judge who was deciding visitation with your children, you, sir, would see your children under a ''supervised'' visitation arrangement only. And I am a very serious proponent of fathers having as unrestricted quality time, if they are not the custodial parents of children, as is possible, because I always believe that that's in a child's best interest, to have the love and companionship of both biological parents. ... But NOT, sir, when you live with this kind of witch! Judgment is for the plaintiff in the amount of $2000; whatever counterclaim there is is dismissed! That's all.
15	* A case circa 2000 involved a 75-year-old grandfather who had gifted each of his four grandchildren $500 for their future needs, and was suing his son and daughter-in-law for withdrawing $1500 of the total $2000 sum to use for household expenses, rent, and family outings. In response, the plaintiff had taken back the remaining $500 and planned to open new accounts for his grandchildren. Judge Judy was incensed, pointing out that the defendants essentially stole money from their own children and then had the gall to countersue the plaintiff for the $500 he had withdrawn. She eventually uncovered the defendants' motive: the plaintiff's son believed he was entitled to the money because the plaintiff had been an absentee, alcoholic father. Judge Judy was unmoved.
16	--> '''Judge Judy:''' Well, let me tell you something. If you were ''my'' son, maybe I wouldn't see you either. Judgment for the plaintiff on his claim; counterclaim for the $500 that he took back and that he's going to put back into the account is DISMISSED! You folks are outrageous!
17	* 2007?: [[https://www.snotr.com/video/739/eBay_scammer_on_Judge_Judy In this case]], a woman buys what she thinks is two Nextel cellphones from an eBay seller. The seller sends her two ''pictures'' on copy paper of the cellphones, and the woman takes the case to Judge Judy. The seller explains that she was [[ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin selling only pictures of the cellphones]], [[ReadTheFinePrint and justified it because it was in the fine print]]. Judy proceeds to expose her as a scammer and take her down so hard that she can't get near a computer again without an extreme case of backlash. Judy gave the plaintiff [[DisproportionateRetribution the maximum judgment of $5,000 (for two $250 phones!)]] because the scam was just that egregious. This left such an impression on Her Honor that Judge Judy still talked about the eBay seller until the end of the show's run in 2021, ''still'' talks about it now on ''Series/JudyJustice'', and has brought it up a number of times over the years about how much of a scam that was. The defendant has since passed away, [[DrivenToSuicide apparently by suicide]] - testament to how an appearance on Judge Judy's show can ruin some people for life.
18	-->'''Judy:''' (''to defendant'') Listen to me! I'm older, smarter; if you live to be a hundred and twenty, you're not going to be as smart as I am in one finger. You may weigh more, but you won't be smarter than I am in one finger.
19	* 2007: Judge Judy exploded on a defendant who admitted to telling her then six-year-old daughter that the plaintiff may not have been her birth father (a paternity test later confirmed that he was, in fact, the girl's father), and didn't see anything wrong with what she did.
20	-->'''Judge Judy:''' And you did this because ''[reading from defendant's answer]'' "I don't believe in keeping secrets from my kids."\
21	'''Defendant:''' Yes.\
22	'''Judge Judy:''' You're a MORON. You are a MORON. You are an example of why people should have to take tests before they're allowed to have children. Why on earth would you tell a SIX-YEAR-OLD CHILD that someone who she believed was her father, who it turns out is her father, might not be her father?!!
23	** The defendant, who was being sued for the wages the plaintiff lost when he had to take time off work for the paternity test, justified her actions by saying the plaintiff had cheated on her as well and that it wasn't her fault if the test had been scheduled on a day when he had to work. After listening to some testimony from the child's paternal grandmother about how the defendant's confession had scarred the child emotionally (the grandmother claimed it was even worse, that the defendant had told the child that the extramarital lover in question ''was'' her father and that she was going to have the plaintiff's parental rights terminated), Judge Judy continued to roast both the defendant and her new boyfriend before ruling in the plaintiff's favor.
24	---> '''Judge Judy:''' BEFORE you have a conversation with a six-year-old and tell a six-year-old that there's a chance that she's a ''[curse word - likely "bastard" - redacted]'', you have a paternity test done. You don't tell the child first because you feel as if you need to get it off your chest that you were messing around.\
25	'''Defendant:''' He was messing around first.\
26	'''Judge Judy:''' WHO CARES?! He didn't become ''pregnant''! As far as I know, that isn't a possibility yet! ''[under her breath]'' Fool.
27	* 2004?: From a case in which the plaintiff and her son sued the defendant for damage to the plaintiff's car caused when the defendant's daughter crashed it. The defendant's daughter was killed in the crash and her mother was visibly devastated, sobbing openly in court. The defendant countersued for her daughter's loss of life. During the cross-examination, it was revealed that the plaintiff always left her keys in her car and even allowed her son, who didn't have a license yet and was 14, to drive it on their property. The plaintiff essentially cooked her own goose without the defendant having to say a word.
28	-->'''Judy:''' (''to plaintiff'') There is something very wrong with you! Because, rather than saying to this lady ... "I can't tell you how terrible I feel that in MY HOUSE, in MY CAR, WITH THE KEYS THAT I LEAVE IN THE CAR, your daughter met such an early death." Instead of saying that, you sue her for the damage to your car! YOU'RE AN IDIOT! Judgment on the counterclaim for $5,000, your claim is DISMISSED!!!! [[GetOut OUT!]]
29	* February 2014: A defendant, clearly in the wrong after not paying a babysitter for services rendered, is making so many bad excuses that [[ConvictionByContradiction he's contradicted his own testimony several times]].
30	-->'''Judy:''' Hey, are you playing with me, or what? Making you appear to be foolish is my specialty. If you're gonna double-talk me, it'd be my pleasure. Hone my skills for next year. If you, however, wanna say, "You know what? We stiffed her, and I got fired [from my job], and then there was no reason to have her anymore," then I'd say to you, "You know what?" ''(Judy shrugs as though to say, "Hey, at least that's honest.")'' And then you leave here, at least with your dignity intact. Do we understand each other?
31	-->'''Defendant:''' [[SwiperNoSwiping Very well]].\
32	'''Judy:''' Great. How much do you owe her?\
33	'''Defendant:''' $2,400.
34	* 2014: A man sued his ex-wife for false arrest for domestic violence. As per usual, Judy saw right through the defendant and noted how she kept giggling throughout the case and even questioned how she was even able to get away with abusing the justice system if she can't keep a straight face. The kicker? Her epic speech to her when she got up and was about to head to her office at the end of the case... and caught her giggling AGAIN:
35	-->'''Judy:''' You know, I don't know why you think this is funny. I don't find it funny at all. I find it SAD. Because if what you're telling me is that since this all happened, he's been getting supervised visits (to their child, of course), then YOU, madam, are a truly outrageous person!!!!
36	* Judy makes a commentary on how funny it is when people are able to remember small details during a case but not the crucial ones:
37	-->'''Judy:''' Let me explain something to you, my husband once offended me on July 6th 1978. I can tell you exactly where I was sitting, and what he was eating. Most people have a memory of important dates and times. Now if somebody, gave me/loaned to be $5000 I would remember some of the circumstances surrounding it - because you, sir seem to have a very, very good memory of everything you did - calling the bank, calling the title company, getting the checks, sitting down and going over everything - the only thing you don't have a memory of is "Can I borrow $5000?"
38
39
40	* Judge Judy tears apart a private Christian school that locked a special needs child in a storage closet for bad behavior. The best part is her using a [[TranquilFury surprisingly quieter tone]] when she discovered the principal had a high school degree, and the teacher only recently got an associate's degree. Not enough to legally teach a public school, let alone be qualified to teach students with special needs.
41	-->'''Judy:''' I would sue you for a lot more than the return of his tuition. How dare you? How dare you take children who have special needs? ... I don't think that I have to listen to nonsense about two people, who have a bare minimum education where you couldn't get a job in most governmental institutions, taking a child with, clearly, a behavioral special need and putting him in a ''closet'', a closet that had stored food with a table and a chair, and told him to work there during the day, and somebody who worked for 22 years to get an associate's degree went in and said, "Do you need to go the bathroom"? Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $2750. That's all. Step out.
42	** Even better? Within a year of that episode, the school got ''shut down'', thanks to the case bringing to attention just how bad the conditions at the school were.
43
44
45	* Circa 2008: Judge Judy heard a case from a young mother named Rachel who was suing her daughter's grandmother for an alleged assault, with the child's father in court as a witness for his mother. Turned out Rachel had a taste for alcohol - in particular Remy Martin cognac - and openly admitted to being in a hotel room drinking Remy with her new boyfriend in the presence of her infant daughter shortly before the alleged incident. The defendant claimed the alleged "assault" was self-defense and took place after she had babysat for her granddaughter, when Rachel showed up drunk and high to pick up the child and the defendant refused to let the child go with her. Needless to say, the judge was outraged to learn that the plaintiff still had custody of the girl and encouraged the girl's father to fight for custody. The kicker came when Judge Judy asked Rachel to take a hair follicle test to determine whether she had used drugs recently, and the plaintiff refused. In response to that, the judge announced that she was not only dismissing the lawsuit, but sending a copy of the tape to Child Protective Services.
46	* Circa 2012: A Dallasite brought a young couple to court for allegedly filing false charges against him for threatening them with a gun. The incident stemmed from a dispute between the plaintiff and defendants over use of a vacant lot from which the defendants were selling floral arrangements. The plaintiff admitted to pulling a gun on the defendants but claimed they attacked him first. Her Honor didn't believe the plaintiff's story and told him there was something wrong with him, adding that she'd revoke his carrying permit if she had the power to do so.
47	-->'''Judge Judy:''' You pulled out a gun on them! And you shot the gun! You pulled out a gun, and you shot the gun over FLOWERS! Are you a MORON?!\
48	'''Plantiff:''' No, ma'am.\
49	'''Judge Judy:''' Well, there's something wrong with you! I would be hiding under a rock and not acting as plaintiff in a lawsuit! There's something wrong with you!
50	** Needless to say, the plaintiff lost the case and the defendants won on their counterclaim for emotional distress.
51	---> '''Judge Judy:''' Once you're shot at with a gun, you never look at the world the same way! NEVER!
52	* Circa 2013 (Wilcoxon vs. Munoz): The plaintiff sued her former roommate for unpaid rent. One of several issues at play in the case was the defendant's testimony that she had seen the plaintiff, who was sleeping off a night of drinking at the time, literally knock her two-year-old daughter across the room. When Judge Judy told the plaintiff that she believed the defendant's story, the plaintiff lost her temper and began shouting back at the judge. Her Honor determined that the defendant's ejection from the premises had been retaliation for filing a complaint with Child Protective Services after witnessing the aforementioned incident and dismissed the plaintiff's case, advising the plaintiff's sister, who was in court as a witness, to make sure the two-year-old was well taken care of.
53	* Circa 2003: Judge Judy heard a case brought by a Los Angeles police officer who had given the defendant, a young woman, a speeding ticket, and was subsequently reported by the defendant for police brutality. He sued her in the amount of $5,000. The defendant claimed the plaintiff had been rude to her and countersued for $5,000. The kicker came when the plaintiff played back an audio recording of the traffic stop which revealed that not only had he been perfectly kind and professional during the entire stop, but that the defendant had tried to get her father, a retired police officer, to help her get out of the ticket. Judge Judy roasted the defendant severely, calling her [[QuitYourWhining a big baby]] among other things.
54	-->'''Defendant:''' He didn't want to talk to me at all.\
55	'''Judge Judy:''' He doesn't have to talk to you! You want to talk to someone, go to a psychiatrist! ... You've been living in L.A. too long. I think you should probably go live somewhere else!\
56	'''Judge Judy:''' She's got a counterclaim, a ridiculous counterclaim for $5,000 for "punitive damages and emotional distress due to malicious prosecution." She's operating in La-La Land someplace!
57	** The plaintiff expressed his intent to donate his winnings, if he won the case, to the LAPD memorial fund. Judge Judy granted his judgment and announced that half of his $5,000 award would go to the memorial fund and the remainder to him. The defendant's counterclaim was, not surprisingly, dismissed.
58	** This is one of several cases Judge Judy has heard involving false claims of police brutality against traffic cops. In another noteworthy one, about a decade later, the defendant, a young man, claimed that the officer in the case had been belligerent and had called him "stupid." Once again, an audiotape of the stop settled the case in the plaintiff's favor: the word "stupid" was heard nowhere on the tape, and the defendant finally admitted that he had made the whole thing up. Judge Judy gave the defendant a stern lecture about the consequences of filing false police reports before awarding the plaintiff $5,000.
59	* One case where Judge Judy effectively rips into both sides awesomely. The plaintiff sued a restaurant after its workers vandalized his house and car after a series of arguments over a meal delivery that didn't have the (free) extra dressing he ordered. Judge Judy schools the plaintiff for basically being a big baby and stealing money from the restaurant but still rules in his favor as the suit was about the vandalism. For the defendants, she chews them out for sinking to the guy's level. She rewards the plaintiff only the amount of the damages from the vandalism ''minus the $12 of the original meal'' and relentlessly mocks the guy by pulling out a pocket calculator to crunch the numbers.
60	-->'''Youtube Comment:''' "A classic case of winning the battle but losing the war."
61	* Any time Judge Judy rips into an irresponsible parent, especially if their child is having behavior problems and the parent is either enabling the child or denying there's a problem. In one case, the judge had some very harsh words for a teenage boy accused of stealing a scooter and trying to sell it for parts, but eased up on him a bit when she determined the boy's mother likely had a drinking problem (she actually dragged her son along to bars with her) and encouraged the boy to strive to overcome the bad environment he was being raised in.
62	* A case in which a woman was being sued by her abusive ex-boyfriend for the return of property he alleged she stole. The defendant claimed the plaintiff had assaulted her in a jealous rage and admitted that when she went to the hospital for treatment, she claimed the bruises on her face had been caused by a baseball so that she wouldn't lose custody of her children. She was obviously still very scared of her ex, as she trembled and was in tears for much of the case. The plaintiff, who admitted he had a history of domestic violence in previous relationships, claimed to be sorry for what he had done, but the smirk on his face made it clear he felt no remorse. By the end of the case, he wasn't smirking anymore.
63	-->'''Judge Judy:''' Well then, why are you smiling? That's an inappropriate affect. You know what they say about inappropriate affect? They usually say that you're crazy when you have inappropriate affect. Is your grandmother still alive?\
64	'''Plaintiff:''' One, yes.\
65	'''Judge Judy:''' Okay, if somebody said to you that your grandmother died, would you smile?\
66	'''Plaintiff:''' Probably not.\
67	'''Judge Judy:''' Right, because that would be inappropriate affect. You would look sad. You would say, "Oh, my goodness!" So when I ask you about who did this and whether you were ever arrested for domestic violence and you smile, it's inappropriate!\
68	'''Plaintiff:''' ''[smirking again]'' Sorry, Judge.\
69	'''Judge Judy:''' YOU DID IT AGAIN!
70	** The plaintiff's mother, in court as a witness for her son, tried to cover for him. Judge Judy was having none of it.
71	--->'''Judge Judy:''' Who are you?\
72	'''Plaintiff's Mother:''' I'm his mother.\
73	'''Judge Judy:''' I wouldn't acknowledge that fact before all these people. Madam, do you hear what I just said? He sued for his property. He just told me what his property was. Don't help him. That's what he says his property was.\
74	'''Plaintiff:''' ''[raising his hand to speak]'' Excuse me, Judge.\
75	'''Plaintiff's Mother:''' He didn't understand, I'm sure.\
76	'''Judge Judy:''' He didn't understand? That's not my problem, I didn't raise him. That's your problem. You raised an abuser. That's your problem. I would take care of that before I took care of anything else.
77	** Judge Judy got to the heart of the case when she learned that the plaintiff's mother had been likewise abused by her husband. Tragically, the plaintiff's mother evidently believed spousal abuse (at least the man-on-woman kind) was appropriate or normal, as evidenced by her shocked and indignant expression when Judge Judy berated her son and then ruled against him.
78	--->'''Judge Judy:''' That's what happens. Abusers see their mothers abused, that's what they think happens, that's the way they think people live. You're allowed to do it, it's accepted. Don't you ''read'' things? Don't you watch ''television''? Don't you see ''documentaries''? Don't you read ''newspapers''? When you bring a child up in an abusive household, like you did, that's what they become! They become an abuser, like your son! And don't make excuses for him. You may have made excuses for your husband, but don't make excuses for your son. Judgment for the defendant on the counterclaim in the amount of... $5,000. Thank you very much.
79	* Circa 2019: Judge Judy heard the case of a mother who was suing the the other mother for medical bills related to her daughter being in a fight with her son. It all started on a post about the yearbook photo. The mother claimed that her son was only in school for 2 months as they recently moved from outside the country but it turned out that he was in school for over a year; as he admitted his photo was in the yearbook. The daughter produced video evidence of the fight and it shows that the boy went over to the girl and punched her. He then claims that he was punched her as she was talking trash about his mother. Judge Judy had none of that, told him and the mother that he needs to understand that what he did has no excuse or that he will be in court more often if he doesn't control himself. She awarded the daughter the full amount she was asking for after reviewing the medical records.
80	* Circa 2017: A woman was living with her boyfriend in his house. The plaintiff was suing the defendant for attorney fees and hotel fees while the defendant was countersuing for damages to the property. Judge Judy was able to find out that the plaintiff filed a restraining order on the defendant and it took a year for the order to be drop as he was fighting it along the way. Judge Judy also found out that the woman kicked her boyfriend out of his own house and was living rent free in his house while the defendant was making mortgage payments. The woman had no title to the house or any claim to the house plus changed the locks on him before the defendant was finally able to get her evicted 14 months later. Judge Judy told her off that he still has legal rights to the house and no court would allow her to stay rent free. Judge Judy dismissed the claim but awarded the counterclaim for damages as the plaintiff admitted her son and his friends trashed the house. Judge Judy admitted that if he had sued for her living rent free, he would have a stronger case.
81	* A case involved a father was suing the mother of his child (the child at the time was 6) for hotel fees and travel fees for a visit with his daughter that the mother didn't allow him to see her after he made the trip and the mother was suing for him calling Child Protective Services on her. The father lived in New York while the mother moved to Florida with her daughter. Judge Judy found out that when the couple first broke up, the mother originally said to the father that she would move to Pennsylvania to move in with her cousin and the father agreed to that (as it was only a 2 hour trip) then she took the daughter to Florida without his permission. While the father was mad about this, the mother agreed to send the daughter to live with her father during long school breaks (such as Thanksgiving) and Summer only for the mother to stop doing that is when the father started to fight for custody of the child. Judge Judy also found out that the mother was being kicked out of houses with her daughter and was moving into other strangers houses is why he called CPS on her. While Judge Judy had to dismiss the case as he couldn't sue her for hotel fees and dismissed the counterclaim as he had a legal reason to call Child Protective Services on her, she told the father that he should fight tooth and nail for his daughter (as it was clear for Judge Judy that the mother was trying to run out the clock to keep her daughter in Florida due to the daughter starting public school) and wished him well.
82	* Another case from 2015 in which a child's mother was suing the father for attorney fees and emotional distress while the father was counter suing for damages to his car, lost of his job, filing a false protective order and also attorney fees. The whole suit started because of an issue in which the mother was legally no longer allowed to have any children around because someone she knew did something to the daughter. The audience doesn't find out what the issue was but CPS placed the daughter in the father's care until the issue was resolved. The mother claimed that after the issue was resolved the father still didn't allow the daughter to see her. However, Judge Judy found out that the mother tried to physically take the daughter away from the father before the issue was finalized (the case was closed on the 24th of April but the mother admitted trying to take the daughter on the 19th of April). It was then that the father started to seek custody of the daughter (the suit was still ongoing at the time). The mother's whole lawsuit to Judge Judy was mainly because she was mad the father was seeking custody. The mother said she originally had an open door policy with him. Judge Judy laughed at her over that as he still is allowed to seek custody and kept reminding her that the father has equal rights to the child as does the mother. It was then that Judge Judy found out that during the custody battle, the mother went to the father's house and started to damage his car. The father was inside calling the police while the neighbor saw the whole thing happen. The car that was damaged was a company car and he lost his job due to damages. The mother then called the police 2 weeks later to file a protective order but the case was dismissed because she never showed up. Judge Judy awarded the father his full amount ($5,000) while dismissing the mother's suit. Judge Judy also told him to talk to the producers to get a copy of the tape to be used for the custody hearing where the mother admits trying to take the daughter away when she legally wasn't allowed to have the daughter. The father admits (during the interview at the end) that he never got her to say that she broke the legal order before today.
83
84	* A case in which a landlord was suing his former tenants for unpaid rent and damages to the property. The landlord had both before and after pictures of the property when he evicted the tenants showing the damages. Judge Judy had to stop the case a bit to give praise to the landlord.
85	-->'''Judge Judy:''' Sir, I have to thank you. These pictures have made my job much easier. I normally don't get this much evidence and I wish more people would take pictures before the tenants moved in to show the damages. It clearly shows you are organized and professional in your line of work.\
86	'''Plaintiff:''' Thank you, your honor.
87
88	* From 2015 in which the plaintiff was suing his former friend's ex-wife over the return of the dog or $4,000.00 to buy a new one. The plaintiff claimed that the dog was a service dog for emotional support for his son but his family had to unexpectedly go home to Egypt from July until September. The defendant claimed the dog was abandoned and they took the dog in as the plaintiff never came back for the dog. During the time the plaintiff was to be away, he was leaving the dog with his friend as he couldn't take the dog with him. The dog cost $1,200 when he brought him and he claimed that the other $2,800 was for training to become a service dog. However, Judge Judy found out that the plaintiff left the dog with the defendant and the plaintiff's friend (the defendant was married with the plaintiff's friend at the time, but divorced in October) in April as the plaintiff was moving into an apartment with no pets allowed. The plaintiff was trying to turn the dog into a service dog but only had paid for obedience training and a service dog vest he brought online. Judge Judy suspected that the plaintiff was trying to make the dog into a service dog without the proper training to get the dog into the apartment. She then found out that, while the guy left for Egypt, he didn't send any money and stopped communication so the dog bonded with the defendant's family and the defendant tired a number of times to contact the plaintiff but nothing came about. Judge Judy ruled that the plaintiff did in fact abandon the dog and ruled that the dog stays with the defendant and dismissed the case, but not until she gave the plaintiff a talking to for trying to break the rules for service dogs.
89	* A case from 2019 in which two neighbors were fighting. The plaintiff and his daughter were suing the defendant over trespassing, filing a false police report and harassment over a fence while the defendant was counter suing for damages to the fence and harassment. The lawsuit started after the plaintiff removed a wire fence between the neighbors property. The defendant had his own fence that was next to the wire fence and trespassed onto the plaintiff's side in order to repair the damage to his wooden fence. The defendant also drew a painted smiley face on his fence facing the plaintiff. The plaintiff's daughter then went over to the defendant's house and recorded the conservation with the defendant. Judge Judy saw the video and the daughter threatened the defendant, in which the defendant called the police. Judge Judy caught her when she asked the daughter if it felt good doing that, in which the daughter said yes it did. The Judge also found out that there was multiple police reports filed by the defendant over the daughter's actions, one in which the daughter started to play loud music, and multiple tickets given to the daughter over her actions. The Judge awarded the defendant $3,000 for harassment but minus $1 for trespassing as he did admit to walking on the neighbor's property.
90	-->'''Judge Judy:''' smiling Ma'am, when you went over to the defendant's property to talk with him, did it feel good when you left? Did you feel better?\
91	'''Plaintiff:''' Yes. I did feel better.\
92	'''Judge Judy:''' Good, because that was harassment and the defendant had every right to contact the police.
93
94	* 2016, a delivery driver was suing the defendant for $5,000 after her dog bit him on the leg while making a delivery. Unlike most dog bite cases that Judge Judy sees, the dog in question was a chihuahua. The defendant's friend said that the plaintiff was nipped on the leg while wearing thick jeans. However, the plaintiff took it too far as he called 911 and had police, fire and paramedics come to the scene over a bruise (the bite didn't even break the skin, something shown in the plaintiff's pictures that Judge Judy pointed out). The police didn't allow him to be rushed to the hospital over an injury that small but then the plaintiff went to the hospital on his own anyway. He had tests done for an unknown dog bite when the defendant wasn't contacted about the dog during the tests and had records that the dog was up to date on all shots. Judge Judy was livid that he would waste the time of emergency services over a bruise and only awarded him $250 for what would have been the fee for going to a walk-in clinic as the defendant was still responsible for him going to a doctor.
95
96	* 2008, a woman goes drinking at a bar and gets into a car accident. Here the woman was very responsible and knew that she was going to drink so she asked a friend of hers to be the designated driver, which he agreed. On the way home, the friend falls asleep at the wheel with her in the back seat of the car drunk. He crashes into a tree and nearly kills the plaintiff. She was suing her friend for $5,000.00 for medical bills as her health insurance company denied her coverage because she was drunk, but as Judge Judy pointed out, the insurance company isn't allowed to drop her because while she did drink, the accident and injuries had nothing to do with her drinking and called out the insurance company for denying her claim. She also told the defendant that he is supposed to be responsible for her medical bills as he was the driver of the car. Judge Judy told the plaintiff that while the $5,000.00 was only a drop in the bucket for her medical bills, she should sue United Health and Judge Judy also said that she would be more than happy to give a business report and a copy of the tape so the plaintiff can sue the insurance company.
97	* In 2015, the plaintiff brought a car from the defendant for $3,000 off of Craigslist. The plaintiff and defendant had an agreement that she would make payments for the car for a year and when she paid the final amount, the plaintiff would get the title to the car. The plaintiff was told that the car was just recently brought by the defendant (as he is in the business of buying cars without titles, fixing them up and selling them). When the plaintiff made the final payment, the defendant first told her that the title was lost and he would call the DMV for a lost title. Then a week later, the plaintiff calls and he tells her that his name isn't on the car and it is under the old owners name with a lien on the car. At that point, the plaintiff said she wanted her $3,000 back as the car is now useless. He said that he would only give her $500 for the car, and he felt he was being generous asking for that much. Judge Judy smelled the scam as he promised her the title when finished paying off the title then after paying the final amount stopped communicating with her. At that point, Judge Judy said that the plaintiff would get her $3,000 but only after she filed a criminal charge on him with the state of Indiana for fraud as he had no right to sell her the car. She said that she would be happy to provide a copy of the tape to the state attorney as she felt this isn't the first time the defendant had done this type of scam as he also provided different stories to Judge Judy in court about where the title was.
98
99	* In 2020, a woman was suing her former tenants for rent money when she used her house for Airbnb while the defendants were suing for medical bills. During the case, Judge Judy felt the tenants were squatters as they were staying in the house without paying rent while the defendants kept talking about how the upstairs was so hot that they had to be rushed to the hospital. It was when the defendants talked about housing court and the eviction that Judge Judy found out that the plaintiff already had made an agreement not to sue the defendants for rent and the defendants also agreed not to sue. She yelled at the plaintiff and defendant for even filing a case as it was illegal to sue each other again. She yelled at them to leave before she left them stuck in California.
100
101	-->'''Judge Judy:''' How dare you bring this to my court. You already had an agreement not to sue them. How dare you.\
102	'''Plaintiff:''' Your honor, I only filed after they lied to the court abou-.\
103	'''Judge Judy:''' You already went to court over this. Both of you get out of my courtroom now or you won't be going home.
104	* A case from 2019 in which the plaintiff was suing the defendant for damaging his car when the defendant opened her door into his car as he was parked at the store. After the defendant hit the car, she said that she didn't want to have the insurance companies involved and gave the number of her husband who knew a mechanic that could help him out. The main issue in the case was that the defendant kept talking out of turn while the plaintiff was giving his story about what happened. The defendant claimed that his car was already damaged and she didn't do anything but wanted to help out and give the number of her husband who knew a mechanic. What made the case go sour for the defendant was when her husband claimed not to know the mechanic's name or number but his wife did, so there was no reason to give the husband's phone number out. After speaking out of turn, the husband was ejected from the courtroom. When the plaintiff was starting to talk about his witness, the defendant went on a five-minute InsaneTrollLogic tirade about how the witness sexually assaulted her by grabbing her breast while her kids were in the car and repeated the story twice in a row and contradicted herself during her rant. When she started to talk again after repeated warnings to be quiet, Judge Judy finally had her ejected from the courtroom and dismissed her counterclaim in the process. Judge Judy continued the case with the plaintiff and his witness only, saying how much quieter it got. It was during this time Judge Judy found out that the plaintiff and his witness did not know each other and the witness was only hired by the plaintiff to locate her as she gave the plaintiff false information and continued to give false information.
105	-->'''Judge Judy:''' I've already heard about your breast twice!\
106	'''Defendant:''' He ''[the plaintiff's witness]'' deserves to hear about my breast ''three'' times. ''[audience laughs]''\
107	'''Judge Judy:''' Let me tell you something. I've heard about it as much as I'm going to.\
108	''[later]''\
109	'''Judge Judy:''' ''[to plaintiff's witness]'' What's your last name, sir?\
110	'''Plaintiff's Witness:''' Jacobs.\
111	'''Defendant:''' Molester.\
112	'''Judge Judy:''' I'm going to put you out, do you understand?! I'm going to put you out!\
113	'''Defendant:''' I can't even stand being in the same room with this guy!\
114	'''Judge Judy:''' Great. Your counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice, you can step out. Your counterclaim is dismissed with prejudice, you can step out! OUT!!!\
115	'''Defendant:''' ''[to plaintiff's witness, as she storms out]'' Good luck ''molesting'' people.\
116	'''Judge Judy:''' Perfect. Just the way I like to do a case.\
117	''[later]''\
118	'''Mr. Jacobs (Plaintiff's Witness):''' I walked up to her and said, "Brittney, I have some paperwork for you." She said, "My name's not Britney," and I said, "Yes it is, it's on your shirt." And I slid it through about a two-inch crack on the window. So her window was only open about that far, so... \
119	'''Judge Judy:''' I'm ''so'' glad it got quiet in here. ''[Audience laughs]'' Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $2691. Thank you very much. We're finished.
120	* A case from 2019 in which a 15 year old student named Michelle was suing her 16 year old schoolmate, Rubi, and her 23 year old sister, Bertha, for a stolen iPhone and an assault. Neither the plaintiff's nor defendant's mother spoke English and both had to testify through Spanish interpreters. Rubi started to talk first and said it started because Michelle had accused her of stealing her phone and got her in trouble. Both sides claimed the other had started the fight. Michelle testified that Rubi pushed her to the ground and then punched her and then that Bertha had kicked her. Rubi and Bertha's mother saw the whole thing and did nothing to stop it, which led Judge Judy to tell her, "The streets were a better teacher than you were." Later that day, Michelle's sister saw and recorded video of Bertha yelling and cussing at her mother for giving the police information about her and where she lives. Bertha's defense was that she had nothing to do with the fight and that the plaintiff was framing her, but her mother admitted that Bertha was indeed there, which both her daughters continued to deny, calling their mother a liar. Michelle then testified that Bertha had stolen her phone during the fight, and this fact was corroborated by the police report, which exposed Rubi as a liar about being accused of stealing the phone two weeks earlier. The final piece of evidence that the plaintiff's sister found was a [[CaughtOnTape video that the younger sister posted on Instagram]] about the fight with her cousin, in which she confessed to assaulting the plaintiff, admitted her sister was there, and admitted to stealing the phone. In the background, Bertha could be heard talking about setting up the story in case the police came. Before ruling in favor of Michelle, Judge Judy told Bertha, who had a young child, that she hoped the child would be put into foster care (and not with the defendants' mother, since she had raised two thugs) and encouraged Michelle and her mother to press charges on Bertha (there was already an ongoing investigation involving Rubi). Bertha continued to insist on her innocence during the post-case interview, despite the damning evidence that had come to light.
121	--> '''Bertha:''' How you gonna call me a liar?\
122	'''Judge Judy:''' Because I can. I can call you what I think you are. You're a liar. And a thief. And not much of a daughter, either.
123	* A case in 2018 where the father of a 7 year old and his current wife, was suing the mother over damages to his house and car. Judge Judy first asked the mother over the current visitation of the child, she originally said that it was shared but the judge found out it was taken to court to have shared visitation. The child had surgery while in the mothers care for removing the tonsils then when it was the fathers turn, he looked over him. The father told the mother that she was welcome to come over his house to check on the child for a few minutes, much to the disagreement of his current wife. When the mother came over, the father wasn't home and was at work while his wife was watching the 7 year old. The mother was denied to see the child when she threw a fit and damaged his car and house (with both pictures and audio of her damaging the car and house) and the mother denying it was her who did it. Judge Judy awarded the father the requested money and told him to go back to family court and apply for full custody with the evidence he has. Judge Judy said that if it was a man doing the damage, he would have lost his custody to the child as the mother has a temper.
124	* Circa 2014: The plaintiff and defendant were an unmarried couple with a six-year-old son who played on a touch-football team. The plaintiff claimed his ex came to her son's practice one day in a rage, forcibly removed her son from the field, and then smashed his windshield with a baseball bat. Judge Judy caught the defendant in a lie early on: the defendant claimed she was angry because she had forbidden her son to play football since he had misbehaved at school, but this contradicted her sworn answer in which she said she was angry because she had found out the plaintiff had cheated on her. She further admitted she had been trying to hit the plaintiff when she swung the baseball bat, which suggested the defendant had come to the field looking for a fight. Judge Judy castigated the defendant, calling her an unfit mother for her hot temper and for allowing her anger to create a situation in which her son was humiliated, and informed her that her ex could use the tape of this case the next time they were in court as evidence of the defendant's poor parenting. She awarded the plaintiff every penny of his complaint.
125	* 2015. The plaintiff was suing his ex-girlfriend for payments on a car. The defendant said that the car was a gift to her as they were starting to get serious in a relationship together. Judge Judy starts to believe the defendant during the questioning that it was meant to be a family car together and the relationship didn't work out. The plaintiff claimed that he had paperwork signed by the defendant that it was a loan and not a gift but had lost it. Judge Judy was about ready to dismiss the case when the plaintiff produced a video tape and the video tape showed what the plaintiff claimed, with the defendant signing the paperwork (that he lost) and both on the video saying it was a loan. She ruled for his original amount he was suing for.
126	-->'''Judge Judy:''' Smart. Very smart. I take back what I said earlier. You were 100% correct in that it was a loan.
127	* 2016(?). A divorced couple with a child brought their case before Judge Judy. The mother, also the plaintiff, kept referring to the daughter as "''my'' child" and claimed to have legal custody. Judge Judy delivered a rapid-fire TheReasonYouSuckSpeech with 1. Stating she did ''not'' have legal custody without a court order, 2. The child belonged to the father as much as it did her, and 3. Fathers are not second-class citizens even though there are a lot of judges and probation officers who still don't get that. The look of relief on the father's face is palpable.
128	* 2001: An early case involved a high-school student named Justin who was suing the defendant, a fellow classmate named Chris, for beating him savagely as retaliation for allegedly stealing money from him. Chris's defense was essentially that the plaintiff deserved a beating for stealing his money. Judge Judy couldn't believe that the defendant had essentially gotten away without being charged for the simple fact that he was 17 - not yet an adult but not a child - and had been given a "freebie" by the criminal justice system. She also mocked Chris with fake tears when Chris complained that he'd intended to use the stolen cash for his mom's Mother's Day gift, and found laughable Chris's claim that some of the abrasions on Justin's back were the result of "shirt burns" rather than a beating. As if that weren't enough, Chris had filed a countersuit, claiming his suspension, being barred from graduation activities, and missing firefighter training as a result of the assault were Justin's fault. For his part, Justin denied stealing Chris's money and claimed another classmate had confessed to him about being the true thief. After swiftly dismissing the counterclaim, Judge Judy remarked again how outrageous it was that the defendant had never been charged criminally, and then ruled in the plaintiff's favor.
129	* Circa 2016: The plaintiff began a sexual relationship with the defendant very shortly after the defendant had separated from his wife and was suing for the return of property she claimed she left in his house when their relationship ended. The defendant countersued for several courses of action, most importantly defamation and loss of income when he was suspended from his job without pay after the plaintiff made a slanderous phone call to his workplace, claiming he had a criminal history. The plaintiff denied making the phone call, but the defendant brought evidence showing that the call to his job had been made from the plaintiff's phone number, which left the plaintiff with no choice but to admit what she did. Determining that the plaintiff had made the call as [[DisproportionateRetribution revenge for the defendant breaking off the relationship]], Judge Judy dismissed her case and awarded the defendant $5,000, because the plaintiff's conduct had been ''that'' outrageous.
130	* Circa 2008: In a case involving a check which the plaintiff cashed for the defendant which turned out to be fraudulent, Judge Judy busts the defendant in a [[BlatantLies major lie]] and advises her not to answer any more questions without lawyering up, since she's [[CantGetAwayWithNuthin sending a tape of the case to the police]].
131	-->'''Judge Judy:''' Listen to me, Ms. Elder. I'm going to advise you right now, because I feel as if it's my responsibility to advise you, that we are taping this, and that I plan on sending this tape to the local law enforcement authority in Bakersfield. So far, you are very close to admitting to bank fraud, and I feel as if without having the benefit of consulting with an attorney, you would do very well to say to me, "I don't think I want to answer these questions anymore, Judge." 'Cause what you say in your answer was, "Listen, it wasn't my bank account, it was my relative's bank account, and I didn't know anything about it." Now we come to the fact, from your mouth, that it was a bank account that belonged to you and your husband. You said, "And my relative." Well, maybe, maybe not. But if it belonged to the three of you and a bad check was written on it and you knew that it was an account that had no funds in it, that's bank fraud, for which you can go to jail. And my sense is, if you are a woman who doesn't have a checking account and who has a husband who has worked in the same place for 11 years, you are no stranger to problems with banks. Do you follow my drift?\
132	'''Defendant:''' Yes, Your Honor.\
133	'''Judge Judy:''' Do you want to answer my questions anymore?\
134	'''Defendant:''' No, Your Honor.\
135	'''Judge Judy:''' Perfect. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $1900. That's all.
136
137	* Circa 2006: The plaintiff was suing the defendant for money owed for daycare expenses and for filing a false child services report while the defendant was suing for pain and suffering for her 4 year old son and was refusing to pay due to the condition of the daycare center. When the defendant was recalling the events that allowed her to find the day care. The defendant couldn't find a daycare in the area due to the fact that all the daycare centers were charging an up front $432 fee and she couldn't afford that. The plaintiff said that that they met at a horse farm to discuss the daycare center. This was a shock to Judge Judy as to why a horse farm was even brought up in the first place. She found out that the defendant was in the process of buying a horse and met the plaintiff at the farm when looking at a horse and the owner of the horse was the one who told her about the plaintiff. Judge Judy called her out for her SkewedPriorities, as she was more interested in buying a horse, that she later on brought for $600, than getting her child in daycare as boarding the horse is $200 a month when she was saying she had no money for upfront daycare costs. As for the defendant's counterclaim, the plaintiff admitted that the defendant's child was bit by a bird the plaintiff had in the daycare. However, she also said that her child was in fact in an off limits area where the bird was (the daycare was in her house) and was pulling on the tail of the bird and was beating up another child. The plaintiff was then awarded the unpaid balance of the daycare cost, breaking the contract, as she required a 15 day notice and for filing a false child report as Judge Judy also discovered the defendant called child protective services 1 week after removing her child. Even more damaging was the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiff saying what a great job she did. The plaintiff even said she would have just wrote off the unpaid fees if the defendant didn't file a report with child services. She dismissed the counterclaim as the child broke the rules of the daycare center.
138	-->'''Judge Judy:''' What is wrong with you? Where do you get the notion that you can buy a horse but at the same time you couldn't afford childcare? You have to get your priorities straight.
139	* Circa 2014: The plaintiff was suing his Aunt. The plaintiff recently moved to Florida in May and was living at his Aunt's property where his Uncle and his family (the Aunt's Brother) were living in her house. He was supposed to pay $300 a month starting in July (having an e-mail from her) once he started his new job and to help his Uncle as his Uncle had not been paying the bills recently. In June, after he had a good majority of his property in the house, he went on a trip to pick up his best friend from South Carolina. While he was away, a fire broke out in the house and was a total loss of the house. The plaintiff did not have renters insurance and Judge Judy was about to kick him out when she found out that the defendant had claimed the house as her primary residence and not a rental property and was awarded $48,000. Because if it was a rental property, she would only get 10% of the value of the property and not full amount in the state of Florida. She had claimed the property as her primary residence and had claimed his property as hers. Judge Judy ruled in for the Plaintiff for the full $5,000 and told the defendant that she was sending the tape to the insurance company.
140	* 2007: The plaintiff, Ms. Johnson and her daughter, Kelly, was suing the mother of Kelly’s former friend, Ms. Wilson due to harassment that Ms. Wilson’s daughters, Heather and Mary had been doing to Kelly after Kelly had been stabbed in 2005 for $5,000. Judge Judy first talked with Heather, who said that while she didn’t go to school that day due to an illness but she did go to the park as her friend, Shelly had contacted her and said that Kelly and her were going to fight at the park. It had been known that Shelly and Kelly did not get along with each other. When Heather got to the park, there was at least 10 other people at the park waiting to see the fight between Shelly and Kelly. As Kelly and Shelly were fighting, Shelly pulled out a switchblade knife and stabbed Kelly at least 5 times. After Kelly was stabbed, Heather left and went home, without calling anyone about what happened. Shelly was on the run after the stabbing and called Heather at her house a few weeks later, again Heather did not contact the police or anyone about what happened. Shelly later came to Heather’s house a month later for safety along with food and clothing while Heather’s mother was working. It wasn’t until a police detective had showed up to Heather’s house to talk with her mother that Heather started to confessing that she was even at the park. After Shelly was found, she was sentenced to 2 years in jail then probation once she leaves jail as she was only 15 at the time she stabbed Kelly. Kelly had gotten protective orders against Heather, Mary and Shelly. Mary, who was 20 years old and with a child, had been harassing Kelly on [=MySpace=]. While the message about Kelly was deleted, a police officer had seen the page and wrote it in the police report. Mary had said that Kelly called her and told Mary that her baby was ugly but Judge Judy didn’t believe it for a second since Kelly had protective orders and Mary admitted that she said that she would get friends who were underage to do worst than what Shelly did. Mary then called Kelly’s house and had sent a note to Kelly that she should be dead. Judge Judy asked Heather if she went to jail or anybody else, which they admit nobody else but Shelly had gone to jail. It was then that Judge Judy recalled a case from her days as a Judge in New York City, where 5 underage girls went to steal large hoop earrings from a working mom on the subway. The 5 girls tired to steal the large earrings but the woman fought back but one of the girls stabbed the woman to death. While the girl who did the stabbing got life in prison, Judge Judy had the other girls and also gave them life in prison for being an accessory to the murder. Judge Judy said that Heather was very lucky that she also wasn’t arrested and spending time with Shelly. Judge Judy ruled for the plaintiff for $5,000.00. Ms. Wilson, the defendant, also confessed that she was trying to control Heather but not having any luck with Judge Judy saying that she felt sorry for her.
141	* A case in 2006 in which a plaintiff was suing the defendant for $5,000 for attacking him with a baseball bat, breaking his hand. The plaintiff had told Judge Judy that the defendant was attacking him for no good reason and was racist towards him (as the plaintiff was African American, but the defendant was Middle Eastern). It all started when he went into the defendant's conveyance store and brought some food, the defendant then yells at him never to come back again and used the baseball bat to attack him. The plaintiff claims he did nothing wrong, however the defendant had claimed that he was panhandling outside his store and was drunk (in the afternoon). It was also not the first time the plaintiff had done this as the plaintiff later admitted that he was already told to leave the business by the defendant a week earlier but also the police. The plaintiff claimed he did not drink but the defendant had a police report that supported the defendant's claim, also the plaintiff's own mother said he was a drunk and was trying to get him into rehab. After the plaintiff kept coming back, the defendant reached his breaking point and hit him with a bat after he told him to leave one too many times. While Judge Judy told the defendant he had no right to hit him with a baseball bat, she also agreed that the plaintiff made the defendant reach his breaking point as even the police couldn't get him to stop. She ruled in favor of the plaintiff for $1 and told him to get some help for his drinking problem.
142
143	* In 2013, a case involving a mother, Rebecca Jones and her daughter Libby, were suing Libby's coach, Elaina [=McLain=] for $2,000 for return of the league fees. In November, Libby went to a try out and was offered to be on the volleyball team. In December, Libby contracted mono and was forced to stay off the team until the middle of January once she was cleared from her doctor. When Libby returned, the coach started to do warm up exercises with the team but got to an exercise that Libby had missed while she was sick. Ms. [=McLain=] asked Libby to step aside and watch the other kids do the new exercise, but that had bothered Libby. Libby started to get an attitude about it as she wanted Ms. [=McLain=] to teach her the new drill right now, but Ms. [=McLain=] explained (and also pointed out by Judge Judy) that she didn't have time to teach Libby a new drill at that time but could do it at another time after class. Libby was also paired up with another student that she did not get along with as that student was at the same level of play as Libby. After class, Ms. Jones stormed into the gym and confronted Ms. [=McLain=] in front of the other students about how she felt Libby was treated. Ms. Jones yelled at Ms. [=McLain=] and cursed her out, something the plaintiff admitted to. It was then that Libby was embarrassed by her mother and asked her to leave Ms. [=McLain=] alone and just leave. Ms. [=McLain=] asked her to leave, when Ms. Jones stormed out and said she was off the team. Judge Judy found the whole ordeal and the lawsuit a waste of time and told Ms. Jones to stop being a mother hen about it and said to her that she better shape up along with the daughter as she could tell that Libby was also starting to get a sense of entitlement in her from her mother, or else Libby may be in court more often with Ms. Jones giving excuses for her.
144
145	* A case from 2008 in which a 14 year old got his ears pierced at a mall in which the mother was suing the piercing parlor for $5,000. The clerk who did the piercing admitted that she did not check to see if the 14 year old had permission from his mother but she assumed he was over 18 due to his size. The main issue at hand was not if the company was in the wrong but the amount of money. The owner of the piercing parlor said that he did not mind paying the mother though his insurance company for $500, but the mother was suing for $5,000.00 and it was originally in large claim court for $7,000.00 before dropping it to $5,000.00 for small claims court after her attorney left her. She also caused a scene in the mall where she was asking the parlor to cut her a check for $7,000.00, which the owner said he didn't have that much money on hand, in which mall security escorted her out. Judge Judy, while tearing into the clerk for not checking with the age of the son, laid most of the blame on the mother for causing a scene and not accepting the $500.00, which she ruled. The mother, still angry that she was only getting $500.00, almost caused Judge Judy to dismiss the case when she was starting to refuse to accept the $500.00.
146	-->'''Judge Judy:''' Judgement for the Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00.\
147	'''Plaintiff:''' Your Honor... they mutilated my son. They deserve to be out of business.\
148	'''Judge Judy:''' I'll just dismiss your case and you get nothing if you keep it up. Judgement for the Plaintiff in the amount of $500.00. Thank you.
149	** A similar case from around the same time dealt with a 16-year-old girl who had gotten a tattoo of her then-boyfriend's name and whose mother was suing the tattoo parlor to have the tattoo removed. This time, it was the defendants who ended up looking foolish, as they admitted the 16-year-old ''looked'' like she was old enough to get a tattoo without parental permission and did not ask her for identification. While Judge Judy admonished the girl for being foolish, she eviscerated the owners of the tattoo parlor, equating the case to serving an underage girl an alcoholic beverage without checking ID. She pointed out that they had a responsibility to card ''everyone'' who came into their establishment and laughed off the defendants' suggestion that the girl could be prosecuted for trespassing for coming into the establishment underage. Eventually she realized that she wasn't going to get through to the defendants and ruled in the plaintiff's favor for $5,000.
150	--->'''Judge Judy:''' Your argument is ludicrous, sir.\
151	'''Defendant:''' So is [the plaintiff's].\
152	'''Judge Judy:''' No. Her argument is legitimate. The same way that you cannot buy minors alcohol, sell them cigarettes, because that's what the law says, it's the same thing, and you-\
153	'''Defendant:''' No it's not.\
154	'''Judge Judy:''' ''[scoffs]'' You're dumb as a bucket of rocks. ''[to the plaintiff]'' Can I see the estimate to have the tattoo removed, please?\
155	'''Defendant:''' Dumb as a bucket of rocks?\
156	'''Judge Judy:''' Dumb as a bucket of rocks.\
157	'''Defendant:''' Can I say something, please?\
158	'''Judge Judy:''' No, because your argument is so ridiculous I can't allow ten million people to listen to your lunacy.
159	* Circa 2018: in a case so confusing that even the person in charge of the title cards apparently couldn't tell what the lawsuit was about and just had the title cards read that the suit was for "$5,000 in stolen cash", the plaintiff had apparently moved into an apartment directly above a church (in the same building). The plaintiff apparently couldn't afford to pay rent month to month but got $5,000 in tax rebates and paid the year's rent in cash. The tenancy started in 2015, and she would end up doing the same in 2016. However, it was becoming clear with her limited income with her part time job at Family Dollar that this wasn't going to last. Around October 2016, a fire broke out in the apartment, and quite conveniently, a few weeks before the fire, the plaintiff took out Renter's Insurance. It's unclear exactly what happened with the Plaintiff and Defendant's insurance payouts, but the Defendant got a hefty payout... without an arson report being filed. From there on, Judge Judy herself was able to piece together what was really going on: it was a scam on both of their parts; the only damage done to the building was in the apartment portion of the building and not the church itself, and likely that the Plaintiff's claim for insurance was deemed bogus given the timing of her Renter's Insurance policy; likely, the defendant wasn't willing to part with half of the sum and she was mad about it. Judy herself told them to take their scamming business elsewhere, and then it all culminates in the Defendant getting foot in mouth:
160	-->'''Judge Judy:''' Do me a favor: go fight with each other some place else. ''Not'' here. I don't believe it, I don't buy it. I think it's a huge scam.
161	--> '''Plaintiff:''' [[ComicallyMissingThePoint It is!!!]]
162	--> '''Judge Judy:''' And I'm not sure if you both were involved, but I do know that the insurance company got taken for a ride. Because how much did the insurance company pay you?
163	-->'''Defendant:''' [[INeverSaidItWasPoison $12,000]].
164	-->''(a good chunk of the audience gasps in shock and disbelief)''
165	-->'''Judge Judy:''' Oh, we're done. ''WE'RE DONE.''
166	* Circa 2012(?): A woman is suing a coworker for false charges, alleging that the defendant posted photos of injuries coming from a scuffle between the two of them and a dentist. Judy initially doesn't believe her, and explains why she's dismissing the case, much to the plaintiff's dismay. She dismisses it, but then the plaintiff lets it slip that the defendant is using those same photos in another case against the dentist. Judy, as she heads to the chambers, stops and asks the defendant if she has a lawsuit against the dentist, to which she responds "yes", thus incriminating herself and confirming that she did in fact lie in court about her injuries, and by extension, justifying the plaintiff's claim. Judy reverses her decision and awards the plaintiff $5000.
167	-->'''Judge Judy:''' Your case is dismissed. ''(heads to chambers)''
168	-->'''Ms. Owens:''' Your honour, she already used those photos in court!
169	-->'''Judge Judy:''' One more question. Over here. ''(to defendant)'' Do you have a lawsuit against Dr. (censored)?
170	-->'''[=Ms. McDaniels=]: '''[[INeverSaidItWasPoison Yes.]]
171	-->'''Judge Judy:''' Good. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5,000. NOW you can leave.
172	* From a case circa 2018: A woman is suing a man for vandalism to her car over a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker. The story is that she's out at the movies with her daughter. Her witness, a stranger who happened to have gotten there later, saw the Defendant scratch her car with his keys. The two make eye contact, and he hurries off in his car with a younger couple, his son his son's girlfriend. His witness is called in to tell her side of the story and almost immediately it's clear that the witness, the defendant's girlfriend, was not just not the woman in question (the Plaintiff's witness claimed the woman was a younger one and young couple got in the back of the defendant's car), but her story doesn't make sense: they planned to see their movie at 2:30, then they get to the theater and he looks for a place to park; they meet at the box office and find out they're at the wrong theater. Then they go to another theater that conveniently is close by that just happened to have the same name (The Arbor), get their tickets and find out the only seats were at the front, so they got a refund and went home. Even Judy pointed out how convoluted and difficult to follow that story was and cut right to brass tacks after her story: asking her “don't you feel stupid?” To which the witness responded “sort of”, to which she responded “[[ArmorPiercingResponse Good. Because that's my job]].” She then tells her how disgusting it is for someone whose supposedly her life partner to lie for him, let alone on TV to an audience of ten million people. She then orders the defendant to stand next to her and tells her straight to both of their faces, “I wouldn't waste another second with him”. She then awards the plaintiff her judgment and, in a moment that doubles as Heartwarming, calls the plaintiff's witness a “good citizen”.

Context Awesome / JudgeJudy