$1.$ Three men are trapped in a cave with no hope of rescue and no food. They roll dice to

determine who will be killed and eaten by the others so that some may survive. The two

survivors are unexpectedly rescued $10$ days later and tried for murder. Judge A finds them

guilty, saying that the unjustifiable killing of another is against the homicide laws of State X$.$ He

bases his decision solely on statutory law and case precedents interpreting the law. To which

school of legal thought does Judge A belong? Explain.

$2.$ Basing his decision on the same set of facts as given in Problem $2-7,$ Judge B rules that the

survivors are not guilty because they were cut off from all civilized life, and in such a situation,

the laws of nature apply, not manmade laws. To which school of legal thought does Judge B

belong? Explain.

$3.$ Basing her decision on the same set of facts as given in Problem $2-7,$ Judge C rules that the two

survivors are not guilty because, according to a scientific survey of the community by a

professional polling organization, the public believes that the survivors$$ actions were defensible.

To which school of legal thought does Judge C belong? Explain.

$4.$ Smith was involved in litigation in California. She lost her case in the trial court. She appealed to

the California appellate court, arguing that the trial court judge had incorrectly excluded certain

evidence. To support her argument, she cited rulings by the Supreme Court of North Dakota and

the Supreme Court of Ohio. Both the North Dakota and Ohio cases involved facts that were

similar to those in Smith$$s case. Does the California court have to follow the decisions from

North Dakota and Ohio? Support your answer