Summary judgment is a procedural device that lets a court decide a case—or specific claims within it—without a full trial when the underlying facts are not genuinely in dispute. The moving party must show that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, no reasonable factfinder could rule against them on the law.
In the United States federal system, the mechanism is governed by Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The modern standard was shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986 "trilogy": Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. Together these cases clarified that the movant need not produce evidence negating the opponent's claim but may simply point to the absence of evidence supporting it, and that the non-movant must then come forward with specific facts showing a genuine dispute.
Key features:
- Standard: "No genuine dispute as to any material fact" and the movant is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
- Timing: Typically filed after discovery closes, though Rule 56(b) permits motions at any time until 30 days after the close of discovery unless the court orders otherwise.
- Partial summary judgment: A court may resolve some claims or issues while leaving others for trial.
- Evidence considered: Pleadings, depositions, affidavits, interrogatory answers, and admissions—not credibility assessments, which remain a jury function.
Other common-law jurisdictions have analogous procedures. In England and Wales, Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules allows summary judgment where a claim or defense has "no real prospect of success." Canadian provinces follow similar rules, with the Supreme Court of Canada's 2014 decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin expanding access to summary judgment in Ontario.
For international-law researchers, the concept is relevant when analyzing how domestic courts dispose of cases implicating treaty obligations, sovereign immunity, or transnational disputes before reaching the merits at trial.
Example
In *Celotex Corp. v. Catrett* (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court held that summary judgment was properly granted to an asbestos manufacturer because the plaintiff failed to produce evidence linking the decedent's exposure to the defendant's product.