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 Utah, the summary judgment process is governed by Rule 56 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows a party to move for summary judgment if 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 resolving cases without a trial when there are no factual disputes that require a jury's or judge's determination. The court reviews all evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. If the court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it will grant summary judgment. This does not infringe upon the constitutional right to a jury trial, as that right is preserved for cases where factual disputes exist. Summary judgment is often sought after the discovery process has revealed the essential facts of the case, and it is clear that a trial is unnecessary because the outcome is evident based on the law and undisputed facts.