motion of summary judgement

In the complex world of litigation, one phrase you’re likely to encounter is “motion for summary judgment.” The term might seem like jargon, but its implications are profound. A motion for summary judgment can be a game-changer in a legal case, offering a fast track to resolution without the need for a full trial. In this article, we delve into what a motion for summary judgment really is and why it holds such critical importance in the judicial process.


A motion for summary judgment is a formal request made by one party in a lawsuit, asking the court to rule in their favor based on the undisputed facts presented. In simple terms, it’s a way to say, “Look, there’s really no point in continuing this case. The evidence clearly supports one side.” The motion asserts that there are no significant factual disputes that require a trial to resolve, making it possible to decide the case on legal grounds alone.


The motion for summary judgment serves multiple critical functions in the litigation process:

  1. Efficiency: Perhaps the most obvious benefit is the efficiency it brings. Litigation is expensive and time-consuming. If a case can be decided without going through the lengthy process of a full trial, it saves resources for both the court system and the parties involved.
  2. Risk Mitigation: For the party filing the motion, it’s a strategy to eliminate the risk of a jury’s unpredictable behaviour. Jurors can be swayed by emotions, biases, or even the skill of the opposing counsel. A successful motion for summary judgment sidesteps these variables.
  3. Clarity and Focus: Such a motion helps clarify the points of law that are truly in dispute, helping both parties focus their resources on what really matters. This can be especially important in complex cases involving multiple parties or intricate legal issues.
  4. Precedent Setting: Successfully argued, a motion for summary judgment can set legal precedent, influencing future cases with similar circumstances. This is often overlooked but can be crucial in shaping the legal landscape.


Following our insightful dive into what a motion for summary judgment is and its significance in the legal arena, there’s another crucial aspect that demands attention: capitalization rules in legal documents. While seemingly a minor detail, capitalization serves a crucial role in conveying the formal and structured nature of legal language.


Capitalization rules in legal writing are not arbitrary; they are guided by specific guidelines that aim to ensure consistency, readability, and formality in documents. Just like a misplaced comma can change the meaning of a sentence, incorrect capitalization can lead to ambiguities. In the worst-case scenario, these ambiguities could be exploited by opposing counsel to challenge the document’s validity or meaning.


Legal writing citations

For those in the legal field, The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation serves as the definitive guide for formatting, including capitalization rules. According to Bluebook rules, certain terms and phrases are always capitalized in legal documents, like the names of parties, headings, and specific legal terms that refer to a particular entity or concept.

In the case of our keyword, “motion for summary judgment,” conventional wisdom guided by The Bluebook would recommend capitalizing the term when it appears in headings or when directly referring to a specific motion filed or to be filed in a case. For instance, “The Plaintiff files a Motion for Summary Judgment” would be an appropriate use of capitalization.


Incorrect capitalization is a common pitfall even among experienced legal professionals. Automated writing tools can help, but they are not infallible and should not replace a thorough review by a legal expert. Best practices for avoiding capitalization errors include:

  • Proofreading: This may sound basic, but it’s the most effective way to catch errors.
  • Peer Review: Sometimes a fresh set of eyes can catch what you’ve missed.
  • Refer to Precedents: Legal documents often borrow language from previous cases. By referring to well-crafted examples, you can avoid common mistakes.


Returning to our central topic, the term “motion for summary judgment” should be capitalized appropriately depending on its usage within the document. When referring to a motion by its full name, or when citing it in headings or as part of a list, capitalization should be applied. However, when discussing motions for summary judgment in a general sense, lowercase is typically acceptable, as in: “A motion for summary judgment can accelerate the resolution of a lawsuit.”



In light of our previous discussion on what a motion for summary judgment entails and the general rules of capitalization in legal documents, let’s now delve deeper into why the meticulous act of capitalizing certain words can be so impactful in legal writing. We will explore this concept through the lens of our primary keyword, the ‘motion for summary judgment,’ and analyse how capitalization affects the interpretation and clarity of such important legal documents.

Interpretation: The Legal Minefield

Legal documents are often scrutinized not just for their content but also for their form. The interpretation of a word can change based on whether it is capitalized or not. In legal writing, a capitalized term may refer to a specific, defined term within the document. For example, in a contract, you might see language like: “The Seller shall provide the Goods to the Buyer,” where ‘Seller,’ ‘Goods,’ and ‘Buyer’ are defined terms.

In motions like the motion for summary judgment, improper capitalization could make it unclear whether the motion refers to a specific summary judgment motion filed in the case or to such motions in a general sense. This could potentially open up the text to various interpretations, which is something you want to avoid in legal practice.

Consistency: The Unsung Hero of Clarity

Capitalization contributes to the consistency of a document. When terms are capitalized in the same way throughout a document, it helps the reader understand that the same concept is being referred to. Consistency aids clarity, and clarity is crucial in legal writing where stakes are high. Inconsistent capitalization can result in confusion and may cause the reader to question the credibility and professionalism of the document’s author.

Role of Precedence in Capitalization

Legal writing often draws from precedent, whether it’s past court decisions or standard forms of contracts and motions. Following the capitalization style used in respected sources can provide a guidepost for how to approach your own writing. A ‘motion for summary judgment’ that aligns with the accepted norms of capitalization will likely be viewed as more credible and authoritative.

High-Stakes Consequences of Getting it Wrong

Imagine a scenario where a motion for summary judgment is dismissed or delayed simply because of unclear or inconsistent capitalization. Although it may seem unlikely, in the world of law, where every detail can be scrutinized, it’s a possibility that should not be overlooked. Precise language and proper form can make or break legal arguments, making the seemingly minor issue of capitalization a concern of paramount importance.

Bringing it Back to Motion for Summary Judgment

When it comes to drafting a motion for summary judgment, every detail matters, right down to the capitalization of the words in the document. For example, if you’re referring to a particular motion for summary judgment filed in your case, it would be prudent to capitalize it as “Motion for Summary Judgment.” This helps to distinguish it from a general discussion about such motions, where the lowercase “motion for summary judgment” would suffice.

Capitalization in legal documents, including motions for summary judgment, is not just about following grammatical rules. It’s an essential aspect of clear, unequivocal legal writing that stands up to scrutiny. So, the next time you draft or read through a legal document, pay close attention to the capitalization. It’s not just a matter of form, but one of substance and clarity as well.


In extending our discussion on the significance of capitalization in legal writing, particularly with reference to our keyword ‘motion for summary judgment,’ let’s highlight some common capitalization mistakes through actual case studies. The aim here is to offer practical insights that underscore why this seemingly minor issue can have significant consequences.

Case Study 1: Inconsistent Use of Defined Terms

In one noteworthy case, a legal team consistently referred to a “Party” in a contract but later switched to “party” without any explanation. This switch created ambiguity as to whether the contract was still discussing the originally defined “Party” or referencing a new, undefined term. As a result, the court had to spend valuable time dissecting the language, thus delaying a motion for summary judgment that hinged on the roles of these parties.

Case Study 2: Misalignment with Precedent

Another legal document, this time a motion for summary judgment, deviated from the standard capitalization used in well-established precedents. Instead of sticking to “Plaintiff” and “Defendant,” the document used “plaintiff” and “defendant,” raising questions about whether this was an intentional emphasis shift or a mere error. Such discrepancies can affect the credibility of the document and may distract from the merits of the case.

Case Study 3: The Capitalization of Legal Theories

In a third case, a motion for summary judgment made the mistake of capitalizing common legal theories like “Breach of Contract” and “Negligence.” While these terms are important, they are not typically capitalized unless defined for the purpose of the specific document. This superfluous capitalization led to questions about the document’s legal accuracy and thus complicated the proceedings.

The Domino Effect

What these case studies demonstrate is that something as simple as an uppercase or lowercase letter can set off a chain of events that derail legal proceedings. This is especially true in crucial legal documents like a motion for summary judgment, where clarity and precision are non-negotiable. Errors in capitalization can muddy the waters, create ambiguity, and lead to costly delays.

These examples should serve as a cautionary tale to pay close attention to capitalization in legal writing. Whether you’re preparing a contract, an affidavit, or a motion for summary judgment, keeping capitalization consistent and clear is paramount for effective legal communication.


As we delve further into the intricacies of legal writing, including the preparation of documents like motions for summary judgment, it’s crucial to recognize that the styling and formatting guidelines can vary depending on the writing standard being followed. Whether it’s APA, MLA, or the legal-specific Bluebook, each has its own set of rules when it comes to capitalization, citation, and general formatting.


While the American Psychological Association (APA) style is not frequently used in legal settings, it does make appearances in scholarly articles that discuss legal issues. The APA guidelines are quite stringent about capitalization, particularly of headings and titles. For instance, only the first word of the title or a proper noun would be capitalized. However, when referencing legal documents like motions for summary judgment, the APA style would usually entail maintaining the original document’s capitalization rules.


The Modern Language Association (MLA) style, likewise seldom used in court proceedings, has its own capitalization conventions. In contrast to APA, MLA dictates that each major word in the title of a work should be capitalized. For legal documents, particularly motions for summary judgment, following MLA standards might lead to inconsistencies. For example, terms like “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” might not be capitalized, which could raise questions about the document’s credibility.


The Bluebook is the style guide most commonly used in the legal arena. It prescribes specific capitalization rules for legal terms, citations, and even footnote material. It’s the go-to standard for most legal documents, including motions for summary judgment. Bluebook capitalization rules, in general, align closely with the practical needs of legal clarity and precision. Terms defined in a document, for example, are usually capitalized for ease of reference, streamlining the reading process for judges and lawyers alike.

In summary, understanding the nuances of different citation styles can have practical implications on the clarity and efficacy of your legal documents, especially complex submissions like motions for summary judgment. So, while the capitalization may seem like a minor issue, when seen through the lens of varying style guides, its significance is further magnified.


Continuing our focus on the intricacies of legal writing and particularly on motions for summary judgment, it’s worth considering how courts handle documents that contain capitalization errors. Even with the best style guides like APA, MLA, or the Bluebook, mistakes happen. But how consequential are these errors?

In general, the court’s primary concern is the clarity and intention behind the legal argument. However, glaring capitalization errors can muddy the waters and introduce ambiguity. While a single error in a motion for summary judgment might not be a deal-breaker, repeated mistakes can compromise the document’s professionalism and may lead the judge to question the care with which the motion was prepared.

For example, if a term is defined in a motion for summary judgment and is supposed to be capitalized throughout the document for ease of reference, failure to maintain consistent capitalization can create confusion. In such a scenario, opposing counsel might argue that the inconsistency undermines the clarity of the document, which could work against the party who filed the motion.

It’s also important to consider jurisdictional variations. Some judges might be more lenient with stylistic issues, focusing more on the merit of the case. Others may be sticklers for detail, where even minor errors can lead to unfavourable impressions.

So, while the core arguments in a motion for summary judgment are of utmost importance, neglecting seemingly minor details like capitalization can have unintended consequences in how the document is received and interpreted.


Building upon our discussion about the importance of capitalization in legal documents like motions for summary judgment, let’s turn our attention to the role of clerks and paralegals in ensuring these documents are free from such errors.

Clerks and paralegals serve as the unsung heroes behind the scenes, meticulously reviewing documents for formatting and grammatical accuracy. Given the stakes and scrutiny involved in motions for summary judgment, their role cannot be understated. They are often the final checkpoint before a legal document is submitted to the court, making sure it adheres to the specific style guide being employed, whether it’s APA, MLA, or the Bluebook.

Their keen eyes can catch inconsistent capitalization that could otherwise be easily overlooked but may result in ambiguity, as discussed earlier. They are trained to spot these kinds of mistakes and ensure that the documents are as clear and as professional as possible. Even in the fast-paced legal world where attorneys might rush through the drafting process to meet tight deadlines, clerks and paralegals provide a crucial quality control service.

In summary, while the content of a motion for summary judgment is undeniably crucial, the form also matters. Clerks and paralegals play a vital role in ensuring that the capitalization and overall formatting align with the expectations of the court, thereby contributing to the document’s efficacy and professionalism.



Some popular options include Grammarly, which helps with grammar and spelling, and Westlaw or LexisNexis for comprehensive legal research.

In the digital age, software and technological tools offer another layer of protection against errors in legal documents like motions for summary judgment. These come in handy, especially when time constraints make manual proofreading a challenge. But how effective are these digital aids?

Specialized legal writing software does more than just spell check. They often include features tailored for legal documents, such as flagging incorrect citations, ensuring the consistent use of legal terminology, and even checking for capitalization errors. With motions for summary judgment being highly structured documents requiring utmost precision, such software can indeed be valuable.

However, while technology offers convenience, it’s not foolproof. Software can miss nuances or context, sometimes flagging correct usages as errors or overlooking issues that a human reader would catch. Therefore, while they can significantly assist in the initial stages of drafting and revising, they can’t entirely replace the discerning eyes of legal clerks and paralegals.

In essence, software tools can serve as a useful first line of defence for error-free legal writing, but they should complement, not replace, the detailed review carried out by legal professionals. So, while technology can aid in crafting a compelling and accurate motion for summary judgment, human expertise remains indispensable.


Expert Opinions: What Legal Scholars Say About Capitalization in Motions

Following our discussion on the utility of software tools for error-free legal writing, it’s interesting to consider what legal scholars have to say about the importance of capitalization in motions for summary judgment. The consensus is clear: Details matter, and that includes correct capitalization.

Legal experts stress that a motion for summary judgment, like all legal documents, must adhere to the highest standards of clarity and accuracy. Incorrect capitalization can undermine these standards, causing confusion or misinterpretation. For instance, proper nouns like the names of parties involved, or specialized legal terms, should be capitalized to set them apart and give them the importance they warrant.

Scholars also emphasize the weight that judges place on meticulous presentation. While capitalization errors alone are unlikely to change the outcome of a case, they could colour a judge’s perception of the professionalism and attention to detail exercised by the legal teams involved. This, in turn, could have subtle, indirect impacts on rulings or decisions.

In legal academia, courses often integrate capitalization and other grammatical elements into the study of legal writing. The reason is simple: Legal documents, including motions for summary judgment, are instruments that convey both facts and arguments. Therefore, they must be free from any ambiguity, including those arising from incorrect capitalization.

Conclusion: The Best Practices for Capitalizing Legal Motions

As we’ve navigated through the complexities of legal writing, from the basics of a motion for summary judgment to the role of clerks and paralegals, the constant thread has been the importance of getting the details right. Capitalization, although seemingly minor, plays a significant role in enhancing the clarity, accuracy, and professionalism of these important legal documents.

Best practices suggest always adhering to the particular style guide relevant to your jurisdiction or the court where the motion for summary judgment will be filed. Whether it’s the Bluebook or another format, following established capitalization rules minimizes errors and enhances the document’s credibility. Moreover, legal experts and scholars advocate for continuous proofreading and utilizing specialized legal writing software as a secondary safety net.

In summary, correct capitalization is a small but crucial element in drafting a compelling and error-free motion for summary judgment. Attention to this detail will not only increase the document’s readability but also contribute to its persuasive power.