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 Texas, the summary judgment process is a legal mechanism that allows a party to a lawsuit to seek a judgment from the court without the need for a full trial when there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the case can be decided on legal questions alone. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a, a party may file a motion for summary judgment, which must state the specific grounds for seeking judgment. The party opposing the motion must then respond by presenting evidence that demonstrates the existence of a disputed material fact that would warrant a trial. If the court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, it may grant summary judgment, thereby resolving the case without a jury trial. This process does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial because it is only applied in situations where factual disputes are absent and only legal issues remain. Summary judgments are often sought after the discovery process has revealed the pertinent facts of the case, and one or both parties believe that these facts are so clear-cut that a trial is unnecessary.
