Summary judgment lets a party win a claim or defense without a trial when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute over any material fact and the law entitles the moving party to judgment. Unlike a motion to dismiss, which tests the complaint on its face, summary judgment comes after discovery and looks at the actual evidence: depositions, documents, and declarations. The question is not who is more persuasive but whether any reasonable factfinder could find for the non-moving party.

The moving party must show the absence of a genuine factual dispute; the non-moving party must then point to specific evidence creating one. The court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and does not weigh credibility or resolve conflicts, because those are jury functions. A fact is material only if it could affect the outcome under the governing law, so disputes over trivia do not defeat the motion.

Summary judgment is a pivotal fork because it can end a case, dispose of particular claims, or narrow the issues for trial. Its outcome depends heavily on how the evidentiary record came out of discovery, which is why the two stages are linked. Juricratic models this dependency by letting the strength of the developed record feed the probability attached to a summary-judgment branch, rather than treating the motion as an isolated coin flip.

Parties use summary judgment to try to end a case on a favorable record, to eliminate weak claims or defenses before trial, and to force a realistic settlement conversation. A pending or likely-to-succeed motion often reshapes negotiation, because it changes each side's BATNA. The strategic decision weighs the odds of winning, the cost of the briefing, and whether even a partial ruling would meaningfully improve the position going into trial or settlement.