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.

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
(A)

was allegedly violated on each date, despite the fact that the EOP contained several different provisions referring to various types of acts. Be cause the Counts in the Complaint merely alleged that Corder "did intentionally or knowingly violate the [EOP] issued in FC-DA No. 05-1-1551 on August 2, 2006[,]" without designating which conduct and sections within the EOP were violated, "the nature and cause of the accusation [could not] be understood by a person of common understanding from a reading of the Complaint itself." Israel, 78 Hawai'i at 71, 890 P.2d at 308 (internal quotations marks omitted). The Complaint did reference in its caption (as opposed to in the charges) Police Report No. 07-016631 with respect to Count I, Police Report No. 07-021001 with respect t 1078, 1081 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Complaint was defective. II.
Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the hrpp does not permit a broad and freeranging discovery in criminal cases (B) holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law (C) holding that discovery under the federal rules of civil procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted (D) recognizing that the facts that a bill of particulars is discretionary with the judge pursuant to hrpp rule 7a and that other discovery rules are limited in scope might prevent a defendant from discovering the states position (E) recognizing the fact that a bill of particulars is discretionary with the judge pursuant to hawaii rules of penal procedure hrpp rule 7a and the fact that other discovery rules given to the defendant are limited might prevent a defendant from discovering the states position
(A)

electronic, mechanical, or other device (as defined in [18 U.S.C. 2510(5) ]) in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States[.] 18 U.S.C. 3504. An aggrieved party's claim must "appear to have a 'colorable' basis before it may function to trigger the government's obligation to respond under 3504." United States v. Pacella, 622 F.2d 640, 643 (2d Cir.1980) (quoting United States v. Yanagita, 552 F.2d 940, 943 (2d Cir.1977)). A respondent can satisfy the requirements of 3504 by producing affidavits asserting that no evidence to be used in the proceeding was obtained by unlawful surveillance, or by producing a court order showing that the surveillance was lawful. United States v. Kember, 648 F.2d 1354, 1369 (D.C.Cir.1980); In re Millow, 529 F.2d 770, 773 (2d Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). Here, the defendants had no obligation to
Holding statements: (A) holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees (B) holding black box labeled sel was sufficient structure because it was a well known electronic structure and performs a common electronic function (C) holding that the defendant lacked sufficient contacts with the forum state because there was no evidence the defendant knew where the product would be sold (D) holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to determine date employment was to begin (E) holding that the governments submission of a court order authorizing electronic surveillance was a sufficient response to a claim that evidence was a product of illegal wiretaps
(E)