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 Ohio, the summary judgment process is governed by Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 56. This rule allows a party to move for summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The purpose of summary judgment is to resolve cases where the material facts are undisputed and only legal questions remain, thus avoiding unnecessary trials. The moving party must demonstrate that there are no genuine disputes over any material facts and that they are entitled to judgment based on the established facts. If the court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact, it can grant summary judgment and thereby resolve 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 assessment. 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.