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 Arizona, the summary judgment process is a legal mechanism used to resolve a case without a trial when there are no genuine disputes over material facts that would require a jury's deliberation. Under Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 56, a party may file a motion for summary judgment asserting that the evidence gathered during discovery clearly shows that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court will grant summary judgment if it determines that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This process does not infringe upon the constitutional right to a jury trial because it is only applied in situations where factual disputes are absent and only legal questions remain. If the court finds that there are issues that a reasonable jury could decide differently, summary judgment will not be granted and the case will proceed to trial.