Summary judgment

In law, summary judgment—also called judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition—is a ruling a court makes for one side against the other without holding a full trial. This kind of judgment can decide the entire case or just specific issues within it.

United States

Different legal systems use slightly different standards. In the United States, a judge typically grants summary judgment only if there is no genuine dispute over any material fact and the moving party deserves judgment under the law. In England and Wales, a court will rule without a trial when a claim, defense, or issue has no real chance of success and no other strong reason exists to hold a trial.

Purpose and rationale

In common-law systems, judges decide questions of law, while a factfinder—historically a jury, though now often a judge—determines what actually happened and applies the law to those facts. Without summary judgment or another pretrial dismissal, a lawsuit usually moves to trial, where parties present evidence to persuade the factfinder. Before trial, steps like disclosing documents through discovery and exchanging witness statements are required, making the process lengthy and expensive.

A party asking for summary judgment wants to avoid the time and cost of a trial when, in its view, the outcome is clear. This is appropriate when all likely evidence would leave no reasonable factfinder able to disagree with the moving party. That can happen when there is no real dispute over events, or when the opposing party cannot produce enough evidence to support its position.

A party may also seek summary judgment early in the case to eliminate the risk of losing at trial or to skip discovery, using sworn statements and documents to show no material factual issues remain. If nothing is left for a factfinder to decide, the moving party argues a trial is pointless. However, in many jurisdictions, the moving party risks that the judge might find no material factual disputes but rule that the non-moving party deserves judgment instead.

In U.S. federal courts, summary judgment follows Federal Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, shaped by key cases from the 1980s. A judge can grant it before trial, effectively deciding no trial is needed. Other pretrial motions, like a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, can be converted into summary judgment motions if the judge considers evidence outside the pleadings. The party seeking summary judgment is the movant, often the defendant; the opposing party is the nonmovant, usually the plaintiff.

Under Rule 56(a), summary judgment requires that no genuine dispute over a material fact exists and that, applying the law to the undisputed facts, one party is clearly entitled to win. A disputed fact arises when the movant and nonmovant make conflicting claims. A genuine fact is one a reasonable factfinder could decide in either party’s favor. A material fact is one that could affect the outcome of the case.