Why Summary Judgment Is Difficult to Obtain in Virginia
In the course of litigation, there often comes a point (usually after months of discovery,depositions, and document review) when one party believes there is no genuine dispute of material fact and seeks to resolve the matter without a trial. In many jurisdictions, summary judgment provides a mechanism to do just that. In Virginia, however, that path is notably narrow. While the concept may seem straightforward, the procedural and evidentiary standards applied in Virginia’s circuit courts make summary judgment a difficult tool to wield successfully. This article examines why.
Understanding Summary Judgment
Summary judgment is intended to dispose of claims or defenses early, when no material facts are in dispute. The moving party must demonstrate that even accepting the opposing party’s version of events as true, the applicable law entitles them to judgment as a matter of law. Critically, summary judgment is not intended to evaluate credibility, weigh evidence, or decide between competing narratives. If a single material fact remains in dispute, particularly one that would affect the outcome at trial, then summary judgment is inappropriate.
Why Virginia Courts Exercise Caution
Unlike federal courts, Virginia follows a more conservative approach. Judges are reluctant to resolve factual disputes on the basis of depositions, affidavits, or other discovery tools. Statements made under oath during discovery are not always considered binding, as parties may offer different testimony at trial. This judicial restraint stems from a recognition that credibility is best assessed in a courtroom, not through written testimony. If a case turns on whose version of events is more believable, or if there is conflicting evidence, the court will typically defer to the fact finder at trial.
Circumstances Where Summary Judgment May Apply
Despite its limited scope, summary judgment remains viable in certain situations:
Legal-only issues: If the dispute concerns only the interpretation of a contract, statute, or procedural rule, and the facts are not in question, the court may grant summary judgment.
Undisputed facts: Where both parties stipulate to the underlying facts and only legal analysis remains, summary judgment may be appropriate. However, in most matters involving negligence, fraud, or commercial disputes, some factual issue is generally present, making early resolution unlikely.
Strategic Considerations
Even when success is uncertain, filing for summary judgment may still serve valuable strategic purposes. It can eliminate weaker claims or defenses, clarify the opposing party’s legal theories, narrow the scope of trial, and preserve arguments for appeal. Courts do expect these motions to be focused and based on clearly uncontested facts. Motions that attempt to reargue factual disputes or appear designed to pressure the other party may be viewed unfavorably.
Conclusion
In principle, summary judgment offers an efficient path to resolve disputes without trial. In practice, particularly in Virginia, its use is limited. Litigants must be able to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the law clearly supports their position. Absent both conditions, cases will proceed to trial, and legal teams should prepare accordingly.
If you have questions about this article, please contact Natalie Lyon (nlyon@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1275 or Steve Setliff (ssetliff@setlifflaw.com) at (804) 377-1261.
© 2025 Setliff Law, P.C.| View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy