Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of production. We conclude he did not. Of course, whether a defendant’s use of force was reasonable is a fact question and, like all factual disputes, should be decided by the fact-finder. But when the evidence in the record is undisputed and leads a rational fact-finder to a single conclusion, the issue becomes a question of law. Jack Frost, Inc. v. Engineered Bldg. Components Co., 304 N.W.2d 346, 350 (Minn. 1981); Costilla v. State, 571 N.W.2d 587, 592 (Minn.App.1997) (“[fjacts may be undisputed even though the parties disagree on the inferences or legal conclusions drawn from the facts”), review denied (Minn. Jan. 28, 1998). Here, a reasonable fact-finder could reach only one conclusion, that appellant’s use of force was unjustified and unreasonable. Glowacki II, 630 N.W.2d at 403 (<HOLDING>). The uncontroverted testimony establishes 
 Holding statements: (A) holding as matter of law no reasonable juror could find defendants use of force reasonable even assuming defendants version of events was true (B) holding that evidence of misconduct or a deficient work performance record precluded the plaintiff from establishing a genuine issue of material fact such that a reasonable juror could find for the plaintiff (C) holding that a reasonable trier of fact could find that the defendants acted with malice (D) holding in affirming denial of judgment as matter of law for defendants that jury was entitled to credit plaintiffs testimony over defendants and to draw reasonable inferences therefrom (E) holding at summary judgment that the plaintiff had to show a reasonable jury could find the defendants allegedly anticompetitive conduct was a material cause of plaintiffs injury
Output (English): holding in affirming denial of judgment as matter of law for defendants that jury was entitled to credit plaintiffs testimony over defendants and to draw reasonable inferences therefrom