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 Michigan, the summary judgment process is governed by Michigan Court Rule 2.116 (MCR 2.116), which allows a party to move for summary judgment when they believe there is no genuine issue of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This procedural mechanism is designed to expedite the resolution of a case without the need for a full trial when the material facts are not in dispute and only legal questions remain. The moving party must demonstrate that the opposing party lacks sufficient evidence to support their claim or defense. If the court agrees that there are no factual disputes and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it will grant summary judgment. This does not infringe upon the constitutional right to a jury trial, as that right is preserved for cases where factual disputes exist that require a jury's determination. Summary judgment is often sought after the discovery process has revealed the essential facts of the case, and it is clear that a trial would not result in a different outcome.