Footnotes (119)



Summary Judgment: What We Think We Know Versus What We Ought to Know

Brooke D. Coleman

Seattle University School of Law

February 16, 2012

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Vol. 43, 2012
Seattle University School of Law Research Paper No. 12-35

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the “trilogy” of summary judgment cases provides a perfect moment to reflect on what summary judgment means to our civil justice system. However, it goes without saying that summary judgment is not one of those procedural topics that has received little attention. Indeed, it is an area of procedure that has produced heated debates, plenty of press, and volumes of law review articles. So, this is not a little-studied area that only gets discussed on these landmark occasions. This leads to the following inquiry: What more can really be written about a topic that appears to be so saturated? This Essay answers that question by arguing that the work that has been done so far, while making an important contribution, does not begin to tell us what the true effect of summary judgment is on potential and actual litigants.This Essay argues that a key inquiry is missing: a systematic study of what is happening in summary judgment on the ground. In other words, what we do not know, but ought to know, is whether summary judgment sifts out meritorious cases and at what rate. We also need to know how the summary judgment process deters individuals with meritorious claims from filing. And, we need to know this information across the board, at both the state and federal level. The point of this Essay is to show that we think we know the answers to these questions based on the body of work that currently exists. While this body of work informs these inquiries, it does not answer them. This Essay argues that the use of this existing work to make principled arguments about the pros and cons of summary judgment will always fall short.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 21

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: February 17, 2012 ; Last revised: October 18, 2012

Suggested Citation

Coleman, Brooke D., Summary Judgment: What We Think We Know Versus What We Ought to Know (February 16, 2012). Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Vol. 43, 2012; Seattle University School of Law Research Paper No. 12-35. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2006600

Contact Information

Brooke Coleman (Contact Author)
Seattle University School of Law ( email )
901 12th Avenue, Sullivan Hall
P.O. Box 222000
Seattle, WA n/a 98122-1090
United States

Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 886
Downloads: 151
Download Rank: 146,658
Footnotes:  119

© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.172 seconds