With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". omitted). However, there must be “some but not precise factual correspondence” between the relevant precedents and the conduct at issue. Id. (citations omitted). Officials are expected to “apply general, well-developed legal principles.” Id. (citation omitted). The acts complained of in this case which relate to the diet issue occurred between July 18, 1992 and February 24, 1994. Case law prior to July 18, 1992 reveals that courts had found that inmates have a right, in general, to sufficient food to sustain them in satisfactory health consistent with their religious beliefs. See, e.g., Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F.2d 46 (7th Cir.1990) (reversing summary judgment for defendants where Muslim in disciplinary segregation denied non-pork diet); Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). Prior to July 1992, however, courts had also

A: holding orthodox jewish inmates are entitled to a kosher diet
B: holding that prison official could not deny inmate kosher meals based on rabbis determination that inmate was not jewish under judaic law
C: holding orthodox jewish inmate was entitled to kosher meals
D: holding that juveniles are not entitled to jury trials
A.