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. Established exclusionary rule
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Weeks v US 1914
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
2. Mandated 21-year-old drinking age (if you don't feds will take away all federal highway funds
US v Nixon 1974
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Schenck v US 1919
Katz v US 1967
3. Race cannot be sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative district boundaries (1982 VRA wants them to do that - though)
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Clinton v New York 1998
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
4. Executive efforts to prevent publication forbidden (Ellsburg & Vietnam)
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
New York Times v US 1971
Roe v Wade 1973
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
5. African Americans denied right to vote in primaries = violate fifteenth amendment
US v Nixon 1974
Near v Minnesota 1931
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Smith v Allwright 1944
6. Libel and obscenity not protected by first amendment - so three-part obscenity test established
Kelo v New London 2005
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Miller v California 1973
Gregg v Georgia 1976
7. State prohibition of consensual sodomy in private is unreasonable invasion of privacy
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Schenck v US 1919
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Kelo v New London 2005
8. Race-based affirmative action was permissible so long as it was in the service of creating greater diversity
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
United States v Lopez 1995
9. Students don't 'shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door -' Iowa students suspended for wearing armbands to protest Vietnam war
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Roe v Wade 1973
US v Nixon 1974
Oregon v Elstad 1985
10. Ordered house districts to be near as equal as possible - enshrined principal of 'one man - one vote.'
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
11. Secular rather than religious purpose? neither promote nor discourage religion? avoid 'excessive entanglement?'
Oregon v Elstad 1985
US v Nixon 1974
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
12. States did not have power to tax the national bank - reinforces supremacy clause
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Furman v Georgia 1972
13. Forbids execution of defendants who are mentally retarded
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Roe v Wade 1973
14. Gave states more power to regulate abortion
Virginia v Black 2002
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
15. BSA could expel any homosexual member they wanted because of first amendment right of expressive association
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Powell v Alabama 1932
Betts v Brady 1942
16. Separate but equal for races
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Weeks v US 1914
17. Fighting words - certain offensive types of speech prohibited
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
18. Invalidated 1989 Flag Protection Act
US v Eichman 1990
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Roe v Wade 1973
19. States cannot set term limits on members of congress
Texas v Johnson 1989
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
20. You can burn the flag
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Texas v Johnson 1989
Miller v California 1973
Clinton v New York 1998
21. Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Gitlow v NY 1925
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Engel v Vitale 1962
22. Right to privacy
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Korematsu v US 1944
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
23. State govs must provide counsel in cases involving the death penalty to those who can't afford it
Katz v US 1967
Powell v Alabama 1932
Dennis v US 1951
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
24. Overturned Olmstead - warrants were required to listen in on phone conversation
Marbury v Madison 1803
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Katz v US 1967
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
25. Any defendant who asked for a lawyer had to have one granted to him - or any confession after that point is inadmissible
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
26. Cross burning = 'fighting words' = unconstitutional
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Virginia v Black 2002
27. Made the CRA 1964 apply to virtually all businesses
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Betts v Brady 1942
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
28. States not allowed to prevent or punish inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Bush v Gore 2000
Virginia v Black 2002
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
29. 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
Baker v Carr 1962
Kelo v New London 2005
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Schenck v US 1919
30. Separate is not equal
Roe v Wade 1973
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
31. 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
Dennis v US 1951
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
32. Selectively incorporates freedom of the press - prevents prior restraint -state injunctions to prevent publication unconstitutional
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Near v Minnesota 1931
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
33. Segregate with al 'due and deliberate speed'
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Smith v Allwright 1944
34. 'Bad Tendency Doctrine -' speech restricted if it has tendency to lead to illegal actions; selectively incorporated freedom of speech to states
Gitlow v NY 1925
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Dennis v US 1951
Lawrence v Texas 2003
35. Federal wiretaps of phone conversation is constitutional
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Olmstead v US 1928
Kelo v New London 2005
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
36. Established judicial review
Texas v Johnson 1989
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Marbury v Madison 1803
Clinton v New York 1998
37. Threw out undergraduate system of selection - generally upheld Bakke
Marbury v Madison 1803
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Clinton v New York 1998
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
38. No such thing as executive privilege in criminal cases - but definitely at other times
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Virginia v Black 2002
US v Nixon 1974
39. States can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an 'undue burden' on women
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
40. Citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Korematsu v US 1944
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
41. Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Oregon v Elstad 1985
42. Protesters have substantially fewer assembly rights in malls and other private establishments
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Powell v Alabama 1932
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
43. All state governments must provide an attorney in all cases for those who can't afford one - powerful repudiation of Betts v Brady
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
44. School district can suspend students for lewd or indecent speech
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Engel v Vitale 1962
Lawrence v Texas 2003
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
45. Cities could legitimately require parade permits in the interest of pubic order (Jehovah's Witnesses march w/out permit)
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
46. Federal courts = final authority on creation of house districts
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
United States v Lopez 1995
Baker v Carr 1962
47. Clear and present danger (yelling fire) - Holmes
Schenck v US 1919
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Powell v Alabama 1932
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
48. 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
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Katz v US 1967
Korematsu v US 1944
Buckley v Baleo 1976
49. Halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found
Miller v California 1973
Texas v Johnson 1989
Powell v Alabama 1932
Furman v Georgia 1972
50. Forbids state-mandated bible reading
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
US v Nixon 1974
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Oregon v Elstad 1985