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 Colorado, the summary judgment process is governed by the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 56. This rule allows a party to move for summary judgment if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation by resolving cases without a trial when there are no factual disputes that require a jury's or judge's determination. The party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that there are no relevant facts at issue, and that based on the undisputed facts, they are entitled to a judgment according to the law. If the court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact, it may grant summary judgment and thereby avoid an unnecessary trial. The right to a jury trial is preserved under the Colorado Constitution and the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but it does not extend to cases where only legal issues are present and no factual disputes exist. Therefore, granting summary judgment does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial when factual issues are absent.