
Free Daily Podcast Summary
by The People’s Court Podcast
The honorable Judge Marilyn Milian presides over the four-time Emmy award winning "The People’s Court." For more than two decades, Milian has dispensed justice and provided legal insight in the courtroom where justice and reality collide. And now, you can take the show on the go with "The People’s Court Podcast." "The People’s Court Podcast" draws on ordinary people who have filed grievances in civil court and have opted to have their cases heard and mediated by Judge Milian. Running the gamut from disputes between neighbors and family members, to dissatisfied customers suing businesses, Milian's decisions – based on current law – are final and binding. Joining Milian is multiple Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter Harvey Levin, who serves as the series’ host and legal reporter. In the courtroom, Milian is joined by court officer Douglas McIntosh. Doug Llewelyn interviews litigants after a decision has been rendered in their cases.
The most recent episodes — sign up to get AI-powered summaries of each one.
First, the plaintiff was hired by the defendant to nanny her son. However, the defendant owes the plaintiff for unpaid wages, so she's suing. The defendant insists the plaintiff was irresponsible with her son. Then, the plaintiff says the defendant, his former friend, owes him for rent and paint, so the plaintiff is suing. The defendant argues she gave money to the plaintiff and his girlfriend to help them out, so they're even. Plus, the plaintiff has known the defendant for 34 years and put him in charge of a trust. The plaintiff claims the defendant stiffed him on money from the trust, so he's suing. The defendant argues the plaintiff is a fraud and forged his name to get it in the first place. Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
First, the plaintiff says she built a shed on her property decades ago, but the defendant, her longtime neighbor, is infringing on her land. She claims he even put up cinderblocks that diverted water into her shed, so she’s suing him for the cost of repairs. The defendant says he’s surprised the plaintiff is suing him, especially since the plaintiff never put rain gutters on her shed. He denies owing anything. Then, the plaintiff claims the defendant, her husband, stole money from her bank accounts. She went to the police, who told her the defendant had a right to her money. He also owes six years of rent, so she’s suing for all she’s owed. The defendant says the plaintiff claimed he was stalking her, and he can’t wait to get divorced. He’s countersuing for harassment and defamation of character. Plus, the plaintiff claims the defendant is a business colleague and agreed to sublet her apartment. His deposit check bounced, and now he’s backing out of the deal. She’s suing him for what he owes. The defendant says he intended to rent the apartment, but then he had a tax issue and couldn’t move. He claims he gave the plaintiff plenty of notice. Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
First, the plaintiff says he has an ad business for restaurant menus. He claims the defendant, a laundromat owner, backed out of a deal they made, so he’s suing. The defendant says he agreed to an ad as long as he was the only dry cleaner advertising, but his main competitor was on the same ad page. He denies owing anything. Then, the plaintiff claims she rented an apartment from the defendant, but the woman won’t return most of her security deposit. She denies damaging anything, so she’s suing for the balance back. The defendant says she was shocked at how filthy the apartment was after the plaintiff left and she won’t return the deposit. Plus, the plaintiff claims he bought a used car door from the defendant’s junkyard, but it didn’t fit his vehicle in the end. He claims the defendant won’t give him his money back, so he’s suing. The defendant says the plaintiff’s truck was damaged and that’s why the door didn’t fit. Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
First, the plaintiff purchased a diamond engagement ring from the defendants and asked them to resize it to fit his fiancée’s finger. He claims the defendant compromised the ring because the diamonds are falling out and he’s replacing them with diamonds of lesser value. He’s suing for the cost of the ring. The defendants argue the plaintiff’s fiancée wore the ring for months and the diamond fell out due to abuse. They say they fixed the jewelry and even sent it back to the manufacturer for a new ring. Then, the plaintiffs hired the defendant, a distant relative, to cater their wedding. They claim the food was terrible, everyone complained, and the quality was not what he promised. They’re suing for a portion of what they paid. The defendant argues there was a tornado warning on the day of the wedding, which impacted the food prep. He doesn’t think he owes them anything. Plus, the plaintiff rented an apartment from the defendant, but she only ended up living there for two months. She says the defendant was unprofessional and won’t return her security deposit, so she’s suing. The defendant argues the plaintiff left the apartment in complete disarray, so if anyone is owed money, it’s him. He’s countersuing for cleaning costs. Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
First, the plaintiff’s dog was killed when the defendant ran over his pet. He claims the defendant is rude and won’t take responsibility. He’s suing for pain and suffering, the cost of cremation, and shots. The defendant argues she drove slowly until the dogs were safely on the side of the road, but one ended up running under her car. Then, the plaintiff organizes biannual trips with her church. The day they were supposed to leave, the bus operator said one driver couldn’t do it, but another would show up. The second driver never showed up, either. She ended up having to cancel the trip. She’s suing for the profit of theater tickets, cost of the tickets, and pain and suffering. The defendant argues the plaintiff was vague about her trip details, and it’s not his fault. Plus, the plaintiff bought a house from the defendant, but after a week, he found mold spots. A week later, the mold spread elsewhere around the house. He claims the previous owner painted over the mold spots to hide it. He’s suing for the cost to remove the mold. The defendant argues he never painted over the mold and the house was in perfect condition when he sold it. Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
First, the plaintiff and defendant are both exotic dancers at the same club. She claims the defendant took the plaintiff’s car without her permission, crashed it, and fled. The plaintiff says the defendant won’t pay for the damages, so she’s suing. The defendant argues she and the plaintiff were both drunk, so she shouldn’t completely be at fault because the plaintiff handed her the keys. Then, the plaintiffs, a married couple, live next to the defendant. They say the defendant failed to trim his trees, which caused a limb to fall into their car. They’re suing for the cost of car damages. The defendant argues there was a snowstorm, which damaged a lot of the trees in the area. He says he gave the plaintiffs his insurance information, but now the plaintiffs are suing for more than what the car is even worth. Plus, the plaintiff hired the defendants, a broker and landlord, to find him a room to live in. He claims the room ended up being illegal. He’s suing for rent and return of the broker’s fee. The defendants say the plaintiff started harassing another tenant, who got a restraining order against the plaintiff. Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
First, the plaintiff rented a room from the defendant and claims it was like living in a house of horrors. He says the defendant is withholding his security deposit out of spite after he called Child Protective Services on her. He is suing to get the deposit back. The defendant claims she was falsely reported to CPS and is countersuing for defamation and pain and suffering. Then, the plaintiff claims that while she was out walking her dog in public, the defendant’s dog reached through his fence, grabbed her dog, and caused injuries to the animal. She is suing for the $5,000 she’s owed. The defendant argues he has “Beware of Dog” signs up on his property. He has surveillance footage showing it was the plaintiff’s dog who reached through the fence, and his dog was simply defending itself on his property. Plus, the plaintiff responded to an ad in the newspaper for a 2002 Mustang convertible, which said the car was in excellent condition. When he took it to his mechanic after purchasing it, he discovered it needed loads of work just to be roadworthy. He is suing the defendant for the money he spent on the car. The defendant claims the car was in great condition, it was kept in his garage, and he only sold it because his wife never let him drive with the top down. Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
First, the plaintiff has known the defendant for 40 years and says he was just trying to help a friend out. He claims the defendant won’t return an expensive textbook he borrowed or pay the plaintiff back for gas or tobacco either. He is suing the defendant for the money he is owed. The defendant claims he doesn’t have the textbook and doesn’t owe the plaintiff money. He is countersuing because he believes he is owed money for printer repairs and auto supplies. Then, the plaintiff claims the defendant was his ex-roommate, who locked the plaintiff out of their apartment because he has socioeconomic issues. The plaintiff paid the landlord rent for two months he didn’t get to live out, and says the defendant owes him. He is suing for the two months’ rent he paid. The defendant claims the plaintiff is a very difficult person to live with, and that he actually moved out. The defendant says the plaintiff then overpaid for rent and should be going after the landlord. Plus, the plaintiff claims the defendant scratched up her car with a sharp rock. She’s not sure why the defendant would do that, but that there’s even an eyewitness who saw the event. She is suing for repairs to the car. The defendant claims the plaintiff is accusing her son of causing damages, but that it was another child in the neighborhood. She says her son is well behaved and believes his claim that he didn’t do it. Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
The honorable Judge Marilyn Milian presides over the four-time Emmy award winning "The People’s Court." For more than two decades, Milian has dispensed justice and provided legal insight in the courtroom where justice and reality collide. And now, you can take the show on the go with "The People’s Court Podcast." "The People’s Court Podcast" draws on ordinary people who have filed grievances in civil court and have opted to have their cases heard and mediated by Judge Milian. Running the gamut from disputes between neighbors and family members, to dissatisfied customers suing businesses, Milian's decisions – based on current law – are final and binding. Joining Milian is multiple Emmy Award-winning investigative reporter Harvey Levin, who serves as the series’ host and legal reporter. In the courtroom, Milian is joined by court officer Douglas McIntosh. Doug Llewelyn interviews litigants after a decision has been rendered in their cases.
AI-powered recaps with compact key takeaways, quotes, and insights.
Get key takeaways from The People’s Court Podcast in a 5-minute read.
Stay current on your favorite podcasts without falling behind.
It's a free AI-powered email that summarizes new episodes of The People’s Court Podcast as soon as they're published. You get the key takeaways, notable quotes, and links & mentions — all in a quick read.
When a new episode drops, our AI transcribes and analyzes it, then generates a personalized summary tailored to your interests and profession. It's delivered to your inbox every morning.
No. Podzilla is an independent service that summarizes publicly available podcast content. We're not affiliated with or endorsed by The People’s Court Podcast.
Absolutely! The free plan covers up to 3 podcasts. Upgrade to Pro for 15, or Premium for 50. Browse our full catalog at /podcasts.
The People’s Court Podcast publishes daily. Our AI generates a summary within hours of each new episode.
The People’s Court Podcast covers topics including Relationships, Culture, Film, Society & Culture, TV & Film. Our AI identifies the specific themes in each episode and highlights what matters most to you.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.
Free forever for up to 3 podcasts. No credit card required.