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 Tennessee, the summary judgment process is a legal mechanism that allows a court to resolve a case without a full trial when there are no genuine disputes over material facts that would require a jury's deliberation. Under Tennessee law, a party may file a motion for summary judgment after the discovery phase has revealed the essential facts of the case. The moving party must demonstrate that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the court agrees that the evidence presented shows no real factual dispute and that the law is on the moving party's side, it may grant summary judgment, effectively ending the case. This process does not infringe upon the constitutional right to a jury trial because it is only applied in situations where factual issues are absent or so one-sided that a jury trial would be unnecessary. Tennessee courts utilize summary judgment to promote judicial efficiency and to avoid unnecessary trials when the outcome is clear under the law.