In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
--------
Question: ones in the present case, are capable of sustaining “direct physical loss or damage.” The definition of “physical,” as provided in the Oxford English Dictionary, is “[o]f or relating to natural phenomena perceived through the senses (as opposed to the mind); of or relating to matter or the material world; natural; tangible, conCrete.” Oxford English Dictionary, Ohio courts have recognized that “[m]oney deposited in a fund is intangible property,” Walther v. Central Trust Co., N.A., 70 Ohio App.3d 26, 32, 590 N.E.2d 375 (Ohio Ct.App.1990), and that “[i]ntangible personal property, by its very nature, is not capable of being physically possessed.” Denezza v. Denezza, 1996 WL 111812, *2, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 935, at *5 (Ct.App. Mar. 15, 1996) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>); see also Falck v. United States, 2005 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing limited partnership interest as intangible personal property (B) recognizing that property not subject to physical seizure such as mutual fund shares are intangible property (C) recognizing that the government may seek a personal judgment specific property or substitute property (D) holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property (E) recognizing that partnership property is a type of ownership

Answer: (A)


Question: put forth anything to convince the Court that further discovery could rectify this issue. Accordingly, the Court sees no reason to deny or defer Defendant’s Motion as premature. 4. Contractual Limitations on Time to Bring Suit A. How does KRS § 304.14-370 affect contractual limitation provisions? Kentucky law has long recognized “the validity of insurance contract provisions requiring as a condition to sue that the action must be ‘commenced within the time specified by the policy.’ ” Edmondson v. Penn. Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 781 S.W.2d 753, 756 (Ky.1989) (internal citations omitted). Courts typically enforced such provisions unless they unreasonably limited the time in which parties could sue. See Ashland Finance Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 474 S.W.2d 364, 366 (Ky. 1971) (<HOLDING>). However, KRS § 304.14-370 does place 
 Holding statements: (A) holding a delay approaching one year is presumptively unreasonable (B) holding that discovery was appropriately tailored as it limited the request to information within a six year time period relating to one specific contract and the deposition of a person most knowledgeable (C) holding that section 10b and rule 10b5 suits must be commenced within one year after the discovery of the facts constituting the violation and within three years after such violation (D) holding that cogsa claims must be brought within one year from the time at which the loss occurred (E) holding that a blanket bond contract provision requiring a party to bring suit within one year after discovery of the loss was not unreasonable

Answer: (E)


Question: 7 . 502 U.S. 478, 482-83, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). 8 . See Jukic v. INS, 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Jukic has failed to demonstrate that he will be persecuted by either people based on his political opinion or social group, ‘rather than because of his refusal to fight with them.' ”). 9 . See Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812. Petitioners must provide "some evidence of ... [motive], direct or circumstantial.” Id. 10 . See also Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994) (Under the substantial evidence standard, "the alien must show that the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it”). 11 . Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812. 12 . Id. at 480, 112 S.Ct. 812. 13 . See id. at 483, 112 S.Ct. 812 (<HOLDING>). 14 . Petitioners argued in their appeal to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence which suggests but does not prove a discriminatory motive is circumstantial evidence by definition (B) holding that since the statute makes motive critical a petitioner must provide some evidence of it direct or circumstantial (C) holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent (D) holding circumstantial evidence has equivalent standing to direct evidence in criminal prosecution (E) holding that the applicant must provide some evidence direct or circumstantial that the persecutor was or would be motivated to persecute him because of a protected ground

Answer:
(B)