Motions for Summary Judgment: Their Use and Effect in Washington
Trautman, Philip A.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by10
- 2001Hope v. Larry's Markets Wash. Ct. App.
- 1989Parkin v. Colocousis Wash. Ct. App.
- 1980Graves v. P. J. Taggares Co. Wash.
- 1978Potter v. Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1977Jacobsen v. State Wash.
- 1977Garbell v. Tall's Travel Shop, Inc. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1977Peterick v. State Wash. Ct. App.
- 1976American Linen Supply Co. v. Nursing Home Building Corp. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1976Smith v. Acme Paving Co. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1974Bernal v. American Honda Motor Co. Wash. Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
In general, summary judgment procedure may be used to determine what need exists for a trial, according to whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact, and whether one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. By enabling an early conclusion to litigation, summary judgments minimize expenditures of time and money by the parties, and serve the public interest by decreasing court congestion. Availability of the procedure may eliminate the necessity of the extensive preparations otherwise required for a trial. Even when judgment is not rendered on the whole case or for all the relief sought, benefits may result in that the court may, if practicable, make an order specifying those facts not in controversy and those controverted in good faith, thereby limiting the scope, duration, and expense of the subsequent trial.