Summary judgment
Pretrial judgment without full trial when facts are undisputed.
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. 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.
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.
- field
- Civil procedure
- jurisdictions
- United States, England and Wales, and other common-law systems
- governing_rule_federal_US
- Federal Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- key_US_standard
- No genuine dispute as to any material fact; movant entitled to judgment as a matter of law
- key_England_Wales_standard
- Claim, defense, or issue has no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for trial
- motion_filing_rate_in_federal_cases
- 17%
- grant_rate_in_whole_or_part
- 64%
Lore & Background
In common-law systems, judges decide questions of law, while factfinders—traditionally juries, though judges now often serve this role as well—determine what really happened. Summary judgment, also called judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition, is a ruling entered by a court for one party and against another without a full trial. It may resolve an entire case or only discrete issues within it. The standard varies by jurisdiction: in the United States, a judge must find that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In England and Wales, the court rules without a trial when a claim, defense, or issue has no real prospect of success and no other compelling reason for a trial exists. Summary judgment is sought to avoid the time and expense of trial when the outcome appears obvious—typically because all likely evidence shows no reasonable factfinder could disagree with the moving party, or because the non-moving party cannot produce sufficient evidence to support its position. A party moving for summary judgment also risks that the judge, while agreeing no material facts are in dispute, may find the non-moving party entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In U.S. federal courts, the procedure is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, shaped by three seminal cases from the 1980s that clarified burdens of production, persuasion, and proof, applied heightened evidentiary standards, and allowed dismissal of implausible claims. Other pretrial motions, such as a motion for judgment on the pleadings, can be converted to summary judgment if matters outside the pleadings are presented to the judge.
Reader's Guide
Summary judgment serves as a critical mechanism in civil litigation to resolve cases where material facts are undisputed and the law clearly favors one side. In the United States, it is governed by Federal Rule 56 and shaped by three seminal 1980s cases: Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., and Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. The judge's role is limited to determining whether genuine factual disputes exist, not to resolve them. Summary judgment applies only in civil cases, not criminal, due to constitutional jury trial rights. Tactically, a movant may seek judgment on an entire claim or defense by presenting evidence on all essential elements, or may target a single essential element of the opponent's case. Evidence may include depositions, admissions, affidavits, and documents. According to Federal Judicial Center research, summary judgment motions are filed in 17% of federal cases, with 64% granted in whole or in part.
Did You Know?
- Summary judgment is also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition.
- In the United States, summary judgment motions are filed in 17% of federal cases, and 64% are granted in whole or in part.
- A party moving for summary judgment risks that the judge may find the non-moving party entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Summary judgment does not apply to criminal cases in the United States, in part because of the constitutional right to a jury trial.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly is Summary judgment in civil procedure?
It is a court ruling that resolves a case—or a specific issue within it—in favor of one side without ever holding a full trial. In practice, the judge decides the matter on the written record alone because the facts are not genuinely contested.
What must a party show to win Summary judgment in a U.S. federal court?
Under Federal Rule 56, the movant must demonstrate that no material fact is truly disputed and that, given those undisputed facts, they are legally entitled to prevail. If the opposing side can point to conflicting evidence on a key point, the motion is usually denied.
How does the Summary judgment test differ in England and Wales?
English courts ask whether the claim, defense, or issue has any realistic prospect of success and whether there is some other compelling reason a full trial is still warranted. If neither condition is met, the judge can dispose of the matter without sending it to a jury or a full hearing.
How often do parties actually file for Summary judgment in U.S. federal cases?
Roughly 17 percent of federal civil cases involve at least one motion for summary judgment, making it a fairly routine pretrial tool. It is far from universal, but it is common enough that most civil litigators will encounter it at some point.
Can a court grant Summary judgment on just part of a case rather than the whole thing?
Yes—the judge can resolve a discrete legal issue while letting the remainder of the case proceed to trial. This partial or issue-specific ruling can narrow what the jury ultimately needs to decide and sometimes trims the scope of the proceedings significantly.
More in Law Enforcement & Legal Procedures 1-24
Spotted an error? Know more?
This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record