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 Oregon, the summary judgment process is governed by the Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure (ORCP), specifically Rule 47. This rule allows a party to a lawsuit to request summary judgment from the court when they believe there are no genuine issues of material fact to be resolved and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that, even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party, there is no genuine dispute over any material fact that would require a jury's assessment. If the court agrees that there are no factual disputes requiring a trial, 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 need to be resolved by a jury. Summary judgment is appropriate when the case can be decided on legal issues alone. The process typically follows the discovery phase, where parties gather evidence to support their claims or defenses. If the evidence clearly favors one party's legal position, that party may file a motion for summary judgment, arguing that no reasonable jury could find differently based on the established facts.