A motion for summary judgment asks a judge to decide on some or all aspects of a civil case before trial based on questions of law, not fact. Parties can file this motion to avoid discovery and the risk of trial, but it is only valid if there are no possible questions of fact. If the opposing party can show a matter of fact, the case will go to trial on that particular matter.
A motion for summary judgment is a request by a party to a judge in a civil case that the judge decide on some or all aspects of the case before it goes to trial. A motion for summary judgment must hinge on questions of law, not questions of fact. The person requesting the application for an abbreviated judgment is called a mobile party, and makes the request if he believes that there is no objection to the facts of the case and if he believes that the law requires a simple answer.
In the United States judicial system and many other jurisdictions around the world, a person subpoenaed is entitled to a trial by a jury of his or her peers. This means that a judge typically will not issue certain judgments or rulings on guilt or innocence unless the parties waive the right to a jury trial. The jury makes its decisions after the trial, based on its understanding of the evidence, facts, and application of the law.
Before a case goes to a jury, however, either party can file a motion for summary judgment as part of the pre-trial proceedings. This motion asks the judge to decide the resolution of all or part of a case based on the information and evidence presented thus far in briefs, motions, and legal briefs. In other words, the party that moves for summary judgment essentially tells the judge that there can be no other possible way to interpret the law and therefore there is no point in going to trial.
The parties move for summary judgment to avoid discovery – in which they deliver the documents – and to avoid the risk of a trial. The motion is validly accepted only if there are no possible questions of fact. Ultimately, this is because the distinction between what juries and judges can decide boils down to a matter of fact versus a question of law.
Only a jury can decide how the facts should apply in a given case and whether to believe one side or the other. For example, if the plaintiff claims that the defendant was speeding but the defendant claims not, the jury must decide who to believe. If both parties agree that the defendant was speeding instead, all the judge would have to do is enforce a speeding law. Therefore, a motion for summary judgment would be appropriate as the judge could answer the question of whether the speeding law applies.
The party opposing the application for summary judgment need only show that there is a matter of fact. If he does, the case will go to trial on that particular matter. He doesn’t need to prove the whole case to the judge, he just needs to prove that there are questions for the jury to answer.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
