I have watched several episodes of her show, and I think the legal reasoning is somewhat shaky. Sometimes, she seems to make decisions based on outside issues that have little to do with the case. I realize that she is an arbitrator, not a judge, but I understand that they are both required to interpret the law in the same way. However, since I am not an attorney, I would like to hear what qualified lawyers have to say about this. If you are knowledgeable about trials of this nature, please respond. If these cases were heard in a regular small claims or family court, would most of them be decided the same way?
2007-01-20 11:09:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Yeah, but she's a little overdramatic sometimes.
2007-01-20 11:12:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The parties that appear on her show must agree in advance to accept her decision as legally binding and final. The truth is that the show's producers pay the litigant's costs so both parties actually "win" in the end.
It's just there for entertainment, however she HAS served on the bench in NY Family Court and is a real judge.
2007-01-20 11:28:05 · answer #2 · answered by Bostonian In MO 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most of her cases are contracts cases, and contract cases, by and large, are pretty simple. You make a deal with someone, and then break it, you owe them money. She tends to make a big deal about what legally would be called bad-faith dealing. For the most part her reasoning works, but small claims court and arbitrations would generally be significantly more dry.
2007-01-20 11:18:04 · answer #3 · answered by Doc Cohen 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think alot of them would be decided the same way, but she gets overly emotional. It's a TV show so she has to be entertaining. If her show realistically depicted a small claims court it would be rather boring and few would be interested in watching it.
2007-01-20 11:14:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have not been a regular watcher of the program, but my impression is that to the extent they require legal interpretation, they are sound. In many cases, legal issues are secondary to dealing with "did not! did too!" issues.
2007-01-20 11:21:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They seem to be sound (the drama is for TV of course).. now you have to remember this is small claims court, and the rules of that court (legally) are very lax in comparison to civil or criminal etc.. I've seen much worse in real courts actually... small claims, traffic, criminal, civil, and federal in fact...
2007-01-20 11:20:46 · answer #6 · answered by darchangel_3 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can learn one thing watching these shows and that is don't lend money to anyone and you won't wind up on Judge Judy. Even contracts that allow collateral to be seized can be reversed, so don't lend money and you'll be Judy-Free.
2007-01-20 11:20:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its entertainment...not legally binding either...Decisions are agreed on....If no Drama or weirdness, court is pretty friggin boring
2007-01-20 11:16:11 · answer #8 · answered by PoliticallyIncorrect 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i've always wondered the same thing
soemtiems she gets out of hand and it seems so "T.V"
2007-01-20 11:14:48 · answer #9 · answered by GCTA 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You must be referring to her pro-female slant in her decisions.
2007-01-20 11:17:23 · answer #10 · answered by vaughndhume 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋