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 Georgia, the summary judgment process is governed by the Georgia Civil Practice Act, specifically O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56. This statute allows a party to move for summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of 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 eliminating cases or issues that do not need to be tried because the material facts are not in dispute and the case can be decided on legal issues alone. The party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the court finds that there is no genuine issue for trial, it may grant summary judgment and thereby avoid an unnecessary trial. The right to a jury trial is preserved under the Georgia Constitution and the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but it does not extend to cases where there are no factual disputes requiring resolution by a jury. Therefore, granting summary judgment does not violate the constitutional right to a jury trial when it is determined that no genuine issues of fact exist for a jury to decide.