As the Supreme Court held, over one hundred years ago, a summary judgment proceeding does not deprive the losing party of its Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

The summary judgment procedure essentially "prescribes the means of making an issue. The issue made as prescribed, the right of trial by jury accrues."

The grant of summary judgment does not deprive a party of its right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

The Supreme Court made clear long ago that "summary judgment does not violate the Seventh Amendment."

—summary judgment is proper to "preserve the court from frivolous defenses and to defeat attempts to use formal pleading as means to delay the recovery of just demands

And it is well settled that dismissal for failure to state a claim does not violate a party's right to a jury trial.

—seems to suggest that the offensive use of collateral estoppel in this case is permissible under the limited principle set forth above that a mere procedural change that does not invade the province of the jury and a defendant's right thereto to a greater extent than authorized by the common law is permissible.

Under similar reasoning, the United States Supreme Court approved of the use of summary judgment as yet another procedural expediency.

—was a rule adopted by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia requiring a defendant in a contract action to file an affidavit specifically stating the grounds for his defense.

The court does not violate any Seventh Amendment right by considering or granting summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

[CITATION] TELLABS, INC. v. MAKOR ISSUES & RIGHTS, LTD.