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 Minnesota, the summary judgment process is governed by Rule 56 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows a party to move for summary judgment in a case where 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 only legal issues remain. The court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment is sought, and if there is any doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment will not be granted. If the court determines that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it can grant summary judgment, thereby resolving the case without a jury trial. This does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial because that right applies only when there are factual disputes that require a jury's determination.