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. Separate but equal for races
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Baker v Carr 1962
Dennis v US 1951
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
2. Executive efforts to prevent publication forbidden (Ellsburg & Vietnam)
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Virginia v Black 2002
New York Times v US 1971
3. Citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Korematsu v US 1944
South Dakota v Dole 1987
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
4. Ordered house districts to be near as equal as possible - enshrined principal of 'one man - one vote.'
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
5. BSA could expel any homosexual member they wanted because of first amendment right of expressive association
Katz v US 1967
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Engel v Vitale 1962
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
6. Court rebuffed an attempt by state of New Hampshire to take control of Dartmouth by holding that Dartmouth's corporate charter was qualified as a contract between private parties
Kelo v New London 2005
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
7. Halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Furman v Georgia 1972
8. Right to privacy
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
9. Banned presidential use of a line=item veto as a violation of legislative powers.
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Clinton v New York 1998
10. States can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an 'undue burden' on women
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Virginia v Black 2002
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
11. Federal courts = final authority on creation of house districts
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Baker v Carr 1962
12. Overruled Powell - state govs do not have to provide lawyers to indigent defendants in capital cases
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Betts v Brady 1942
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
13. State govs must provide counsel in cases involving the death penalty to those who can't afford it
Powell v Alabama 1932
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Bush v Gore 2000
Clinton v New York 1998
14. 'Bad Tendency Doctrine -' speech restricted if it has tendency to lead to illegal actions; selectively incorporated freedom of speech to states
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Gitlow v NY 1925
Marbury v Madison 1803
15. Gave states more power to regulate abortion
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Miller v California 1973
New York Times v US 1971
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
16. Florida recount in 2000 election was a violation of fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause
Bush v Gore 2000
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Korematsu v US 1944
Gitlow v NY 1925
17. States did not have power to tax the national bank - reinforces supremacy clause
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
18. Extended exclusionary rule to the states
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Betts v Brady 1942
19. Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime - selectively incorporated right to lawful assembly to all state governments
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
US v Nixon 1974
20. All defendants must be informed of legal rights before they are arrested
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Miranda v Arizona 1966
21. Federal wiretaps of phone conversation is constitutional
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Olmstead v US 1928
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Barron v Baltimore 1819
22. Forbids state-mandated bible reading
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
23. Made the CRA 1964 apply to virtually all businesses
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
24. Established national abortion guidelines by extending inferred right of privacy from Griswold
Olmstead v US 1928
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Roe v Wade 1973
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
25. Not libel when they thought it was true at the time of printing
Schenck v US 1919
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Marbury v Madison 1803
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
26. Cities could legitimately require parade permits in the interest of pubic order (Jehovah's Witnesses march w/out permit)
United States v Lopez 1995
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Buckley v Baleo 1976
27. Secular rather than religious purpose? neither promote nor discourage religion? avoid 'excessive entanglement?'
Bush v Gore 2000
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
28. NY could not grant steamship company monopoly - increased federal power over interstate commerce
Weeks v US 1914
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
29. Segregate with al 'due and deliberate speed'
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Powell v Alabama 1932
30. Fighting words - certain offensive types of speech prohibited
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Baker v Carr 1962
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
31. Any defendant who asked for a lawyer had to have one granted to him - or any confession after that point is inadmissible
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Kelo v New London 2005
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Dennis v US 1951
32. Invalidated 1989 Flag Protection Act
Smith v Allwright 1944
US v Eichman 1990
Olmstead v US 1928
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
33. Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Engel v Vitale 1962
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
34. Legitimate use of eminent domain - town wanting to buy private land and turn it over to private developers
Furman v Georgia 1972
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Kelo v New London 2005
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
35. 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
Korematsu v US 1944
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
36. 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
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Gitlow v NY 1925
37. Selectively incorporates freedom of the press - prevents prior restraint -state injunctions to prevent publication unconstitutional
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Near v Minnesota 1931
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
38. States cannot set term limits on members of congress
Marbury v Madison 1803
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
39. Clear and present danger (yelling fire) - Holmes
Smith v Allwright 1944
Schenck v US 1919
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
40. Confessions given immediately before rights are given means the confession is still admissible
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Oregon v Elstad 1985
41. States not allowed to prevent or punish inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action
Clinton v New York 1998
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
42. Demonstrations near schools that disrupted classes could be legally banned
Texas v Johnson 1989
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Betts v Brady 1942
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
43. Threw out undergraduate system of selection - generally upheld Bakke
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Dennis v US 1951
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
44. All state governments must provide an attorney in all cases for those who can't afford one - powerful repudiation of Betts v Brady
Oregon v Elstad 1985
New York Times v US 1971
Engel v Vitale 1962
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
45. Established exclusionary rule
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Olmstead v US 1928
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Weeks v US 1914
46. Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons
Virginia v Black 2002
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Smith v Allwright 1944
47. Forbids execution of defendants who are mentally retarded
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Korematsu v US 1944
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Gregg v Georgia 1976
48. Race-based affirmative action was permissible so long as it was in the service of creating greater diversity
Korematsu v US 1944
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
49. Separate is not equal
Near v Minnesota 1931
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Engel v Vitale 1962
50. Libel and obscenity not protected by first amendment - so three-part obscenity test established
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Texas v Johnson 1989
Betts v Brady 1942
Miller v California 1973