SUBJECTS
|
BROWSE
|
CAREER CENTER
|
POPULAR
|
JOIN
|
LOGIN
Business Skills
|
Soft Skills
|
Basic Literacy
|
Certifications
About
|
Help
|
Privacy
|
Terms
|
Email
Search
Test your basic knowledge |
Important Court Cases
Start Test
Study First
Subject
:
law
Instructions:
Answer 50 questions in 15 minutes.
If you are not ready to take this test, you can
study here
.
Match each statement with the correct term.
Don't refresh. All questions and answers are randomly picked and ordered every time you load a test.
This is a study tool. The 3 wrong answers for each question are randomly chosen from answers to other questions. So, you might find at times the answers obvious, but you will see it re-enforces your understanding as you take the test each time.
1. States did not have power to tax the national bank - reinforces supremacy clause
Lawrence v Texas 2003
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Weeks v US 1914
2. State govs must provide counsel in cases involving the death penalty to those who can't afford it
Near v Minnesota 1931
Powell v Alabama 1932
Schenck v US 1919
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
3. Threw out undergraduate system of selection - generally upheld Bakke
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
4. Citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order
Korematsu v US 1944
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
5. Federal wiretaps of phone conversation is constitutional
New York Times v US 1971
Schenck v US 1919
United States v Lopez 1995
Olmstead v US 1928
6. Forbids state-mandated bible reading
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
7. Banned presidential use of a line=item veto as a violation of legislative powers.
Near v Minnesota 1931
Engel v Vitale 1962
Clinton v New York 1998
United States v Lopez 1995
8. Not libel when they thought it was true at the time of printing
Marbury v Madison 1803
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Engel v Vitale 1962
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
9. Confessions given immediately before rights are given means the confession is still admissible
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Oregon v Elstad 1985
US v Eichman 1990
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
10. Race-based affirmative action was permissible so long as it was in the service of creating greater diversity
Clinton v New York 1998
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Betts v Brady 1942
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
11. Giving money to political campaign = free speech - so wealthy people can now spend as much of their own money as they want if they choose to run for federal office
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Near v Minnesota 1931
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Buckley v Baleo 1976
12. States not allowed to prevent or punish inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action
New York Times v US 1971
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Korematsu v US 1944
13. 'Bad Tendency Doctrine -' speech restricted if it has tendency to lead to illegal actions; selectively incorporated freedom of speech to states
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Gitlow v NY 1925
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
14. Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime - selectively incorporated right to lawful assembly to all state governments
Miranda v Arizona 1966
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Furman v Georgia 1972
Betts v Brady 1942
15. Intentional infliction of emotional distress was permissible First Amendment speech as long as it was about a public official - and no one would actually think it was fact
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Buckley v Baleo 1976
16. Established national abortion guidelines by extending inferred right of privacy from Griswold
Engel v Vitale 1962
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Roe v Wade 1973
17. Secular rather than religious purpose? neither promote nor discourage religion? avoid 'excessive entanglement?'
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Gitlow v NY 1925
18. Halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Gitlow v NY 1925
Furman v Georgia 1972
19. Extended exclusionary rule to the states
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Mapp v Ohio 1961
20. Invalidated 1989 Flag Protection Act
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Weeks v US 1914
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
US v Eichman 1990
21. Clear and present danger (yelling fire) - Holmes
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Korematsu v US 1944
Schenck v US 1919
Betts v Brady 1942
22. Students don't 'shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door -' Iowa students suspended for wearing armbands to protest Vietnam war
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Miranda v Arizona 1966
United States v Lopez 1995
23. Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools
Texas v Johnson 1989
Engel v Vitale 1962
Bush v Gore 2000
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
24. All defendants must be informed of legal rights before they are arrested
US v Nixon 1974
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Miranda v Arizona 1966
25. Prohibited states from banning teaching of evolution in public schools
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Near v Minnesota 1931
26. Established exclusionary rule
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Weeks v US 1914
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
27. Overturned Olmstead - warrants were required to listen in on phone conversation
Katz v US 1967
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Marbury v Madison 1803
28. Commerce clause of the constitution does not give congress the power to regulate guns near state operated schools
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Engel v Vitale 1962
United States v Lopez 1995
29. Federal courts = final authority on creation of house districts
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Baker v Carr 1962
Miller v California 1973
30. Florida recount in 2000 election was a violation of fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Korematsu v US 1944
Bush v Gore 2000
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
31. First time court overturned state law on constitutional grounds.
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Fletcher v Peck 1810
32. Established judicial review
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Marbury v Madison 1803
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Lawrence v Texas 2003
33. Gave states more power to regulate abortion
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Lawrence v Texas 2003
34. Mandated 21-year-old drinking age (if you don't feds will take away all federal highway funds
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
35. Protesters have substantially fewer assembly rights in malls and other private establishments
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Weeks v US 1914
Texas v Johnson 1989
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
36. African Americans denied right to vote in primaries = violate fifteenth amendment
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Smith v Allwright 1944
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Fletcher v Peck 1810
37. FCRA mandated that places of public accommodation are prohibited from discrimination against blacks
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
38. Fed can limit speech that doesn't lead to action (upholding Smith Act - which made it a crime to support any communist organization)
Kelo v New London 2005
Dennis v US 1951
Powell v Alabama 1932
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
39. Made the CRA 1964 apply to virtually all businesses
Bush v Gore 2000
Gitlow v NY 1925
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
40. NY could not grant steamship company monopoly - increased federal power over interstate commerce
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Weeks v US 1914
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
41. Legitimate use of eminent domain - town wanting to buy private land and turn it over to private developers
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Clinton v New York 1998
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Kelo v New London 2005
42. Right to privacy
Miller v California 1973
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
43. Helped states to engage in eminent domain - said that fifth amendment right to take private property for public use is legal for states without eminent domain
Korematsu v US 1944
Powell v Alabama 1932
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Barron v Baltimore 1819
44. Race cannot be sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative district boundaries (1982 VRA wants them to do that - though)
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
45. Selectively incorporates freedom of the press - prevents prior restraint -state injunctions to prevent publication unconstitutional
Near v Minnesota 1931
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Virginia v Black 2002
Schenck v US 1919
46. Separate but equal for races
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Katz v US 1967
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
47. No such thing as executive privilege in criminal cases - but definitely at other times
Smith v Allwright 1944
US v Nixon 1974
Texas v Johnson 1989
South Dakota v Dole 1987
48. States cannot set term limits on members of congress
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
49. Libel and obscenity not protected by first amendment - so three-part obscenity test established
Miller v California 1973
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Olmstead v US 1928
50. Cities could legitimately require parade permits in the interest of pubic order (Jehovah's Witnesses march w/out permit)
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Cox v New Hampshire 1941