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 Massachusetts, the summary judgment process is governed by Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure, 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 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when the facts are not in dispute and the case can be decided as a matter of law. The party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact for trial. If the court finds that there are no such issues and that the moving party is entitled to judgment, the court will grant summary judgment, effectively resolving the case without a jury trial. This does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial, as that right applies only when there are factual disputes that require resolution by a jury. Summary judgment is often sought after the discovery process has uncovered the relevant facts, and it is determined that those facts are not in dispute and are sufficient to decide the case in favor of one party.