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 Pennsylvania, the summary judgment process is governed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 1035.2 outlines the procedure for seeking summary judgment, which can be granted if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This means that if the facts are not in dispute and only legal questions remain, the court can resolve the case without a jury trial. The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when a party cannot establish an essential element of their case or there is no dispute over the key facts. Summary judgment motions are typically filed after the discovery phase, where evidence is exchanged between the parties. If the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a factual basis to decide differently, it may grant summary judgment, thus not infringing upon the constitutional right to a jury trial, as that right only extends to factual disputes, not legal issues.