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 Maine, the summary judgment process is governed by Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 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 avoid unnecessary trials when the facts are undisputed and only legal issues remain. The court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and if any genuine issue of material fact exists, summary judgment will not be granted. If the court finds that no reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party, summary judgment may be granted, thus terminating the case before it reaches a jury. This process does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial because it is only applied in situations where factual disputes are absent and a jury trial would not contribute to the resolution of the case.