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 Idaho, the summary judgment process is governed by Rule 56 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows a party to move for summary judgment if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The purpose of summary judgment is to expedite litigation by avoiding unnecessary trials when the facts are not in dispute and the case can be decided on legal issues alone. The party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact for a jury to decide. If the court finds that the evidence presented shows that there is no factual dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it may grant summary judgment, thereby resolving the case without a trial. Granting summary judgment does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial because it is only appropriate when there are no factual issues that require a jury's deliberation. If the non-moving party can show that there is indeed a genuine issue for trial, summary judgment will not be granted, and the case will proceed to a jury trial.