The summary judgment process provides a method of terminating a case before it is submitted to the jury when only questions of law are involved and there are no genuine issues of fact. When a party to a lawsuit cannot show that there is a fact issue for the jury to determine, the grant of summary judgment to the opposing party does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial.

A summary judgment is often filed after the parties discover some facts in the discovery process, and one or both parties believe that the facts conclusively establish their right to prevail at trial, and that no reasonable jury could find the facts to be otherwise.

In Arkansas, the summary judgment process is a legal mechanism that allows a court to resolve a case without a full trial when there are no disputed material facts requiring a jury's deliberation. Under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 56, a party may move for summary judgment by showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of factual disputes, and all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. If the court finds that there are no factual issues to be resolved and that the moving party is entitled to judgment based on the law, it can grant summary judgment, thus avoiding the need for a jury trial. This process does not infringe upon the constitutional right to a jury trial, as it is only applied in situations where factual disputes are absent and legal issues predominate.