The jury serves the function of resolving disputed facts in the case. If the case were tried to a judge without a jury, then the judge serves as the fact finder in the case. Either way, appeals courts generally do not review the factual determinations made by the jury or the judge as the case may be. The appeals court reviews the case for legal or procedural errors made by the judge. As an aside, most such errors are subject to a de novo standard of review (which means the appeals court does not give any particular weight to the trial court’s decision and the appeals court makes its own determination fresh determination on the matter), not abuse of discretion. The judge’s legal and procedural decisions are all on the record and the appeals court can look at those just as easily whether there was a trial to a jury or a trial to the court. Therefore, what is important for appeals purposes is making sure that any problems that might raise appeals issues are brought to the judge’s attention and that the judge rules on it in the record. This is something that lawyers are trained to do in law school and that too often pro se parties do not know how to do or the importance of it.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no material factual issues in dispute in the case. There is no need for a trial in that case, either to a jury or to the judge because there is no need to hear evidence to decide the facts. The judge then can make a determination in the case based on those undisputed facts. It saves time and expense for everyone. But it doesn’t make appeal any easier than had the case gone to trial.

