|
|
|
|
|
| Professor's
Reply: |
Correct!
|
| |
|
Correct. The Court held that under its precedent, states
have been required to provide certain types of protection
or care when individuals were in the "custody" of the state,
such as individuals in prison settings. The Court
distinguished the facts of this case from its precedent on
the grounds that Joshua was not in state custody when he
was abused.
|
|
|
|
|
 Go Back to Question 3 or
Go to Question
4 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
