Short answer. No, you don't have to re-prove them. Section 4 has the court, when judgment isn't rendered on the whole case, examine the pleadings and evidence and ascertain which material facts exist without substantial controversy; those facts are deemed established, and the trial proceeds only on the facts that remain genuinely controverted.
What the law says
If on motion under this Rule, judgment is not rendered upon the whole case or for all the reliefs sought and a trial is necessary, the court may, by examining the pleadings and the evidence before it and by interrogating counsel[,] ascertain what material facts exist without substantial controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief is not in controversy, and direct such further proceedings in the action as are just. The facts so ascertained shall be deemed established, and the trial shall be conducted on the controverted facts accordingly.
Rule 35, Section 4 — Case not fully adjudicated on motion. Read the full provision →
What the court does when the motion only partly resolves the case
When a motion for summary judgment does not dispose of the whole case or all the reliefs sought, and a trial is still going to be necessary on what's left, the court doesn't simply leave everything at large for that trial. By examining the pleadings and the evidence already before it, and by interrogating counsel directly, the court identifies which material facts exist without substantial controversy, including the extent to which the amount of damages or other relief being sought is not actually in dispute.
The facts identified become 'established'
Once ascertained through that process, those facts are deemed established for purposes of the rest of the case — they don't need to be independently proven all over again at trial. The court then directs whatever further proceedings in the action are just, given the facts it has already pinned down, rather than leaving the parties to re-litigate points the summary judgment stage already resolved without genuine controversy.
Trial is then narrowed to what's actually disputed
The resulting trial is conducted only on the facts that remain genuinely controverted, meaning the parties don't have to spend trial time, witnesses, or exhibits proving points the summary-judgment stage already settled without real dispute. This can meaningfully shorten the trial, since only the facts the parties actually disagree about need to be presented and tested through live evidence. Fewer disputed facts at trial also tends to mean a shorter presentation of evidence overall, which benefits both the court's calendar and the parties' litigation costs.
Why this matters practically
It turns a partial summary judgment motion into a genuine narrowing tool for trial, not merely an all-or-nothing gamble on winning the entire case outright. Even an unsuccessful full motion for summary judgment can meaningfully streamline what's left to litigate, since the process of examining the pleadings and evidence under Section 4 still produces a defined, narrower set of controverted facts for trial, saving the court and the parties from relitigating what nobody genuinely disputes.
Related provisions
- Rule 35, Section 4 — Case not fully adjudicated on motion
- Rule 35, Section 2 — Summary judgment for defending party
- Rule 35, Section 5 — Form of affidavits and supporting papers