Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): may be proper where the defendant shows that undisputed facts negate any one element of a cause of action. See Jones v. St. Charles County, 181 S.W.3d 197, 200 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). Missouri Approved Instruction (“MAI”) 26.01 sets out the required elements for a breach of unilateral contract claim. MAI—Civil 6th 26.01; Cf. Gramex Corp. v. Green Supply, Inc., 89 S.W.3d 432, 441 (Mo. banc 2002) (stating that MAI 25.04 sets out the required elements for a products liability claim). Analyzing the summary judgment decision in this case under the elements set forth in MAI 26.01 is appropriate because Garst has no higher standard to survive summary judgment than is required to submit the claim to a fact finder. Cf. Daugherty v. City of Maryland Heights, 231 S.W.3d 814, 820 (Mo. banc 2007) (<HOLDING>). MAI 26.01, the verdict director for a breach 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion (B) holding that analyzing summary judgment decisions under the standards set forth in mai 3124 is appropriate because a plaintiff has no higher standard to survive summary judgment than is required to submit the claim to a jury (C) holding summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff failed to establish product identification (D) holding that the nonmoving party must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment (E) holding because trial court fully considered plaintiffs response to summary judgment motion failure to render summary judgment without notice or hearing harmless thus trial court was not required to vacate the summary judgment and then reinstate it to accomplish the same end
Output (English): holding that the nonmoving party must produce more than a scintilla of evidence to survive summary judgment