SUBJECTS
|
BROWSE
|
CAREER CENTER
|
POPULAR
|
JOIN
|
LOGIN
Business Skills
|
Soft Skills
|
Basic Literacy
|
Certifications
About
|
Help
|
Privacy
|
Terms
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
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Weeks v US 1914
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
2. Federal wiretaps of phone conversation is constitutional
Marbury v Madison 1803
Korematsu v US 1944
Olmstead v US 1928
Virginia v Black 2002
3. 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
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Virginia v Black 2002
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Texas v Johnson 1989
4. 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
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Miranda v Arizona 1966
5. Right to privacy
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Texas v Johnson 1989
Betts v Brady 1942
6. Invalidated 1989 Flag Protection Act
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
US v Eichman 1990
7. 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
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Virginia v Black 2002
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
8. Separate is not equal
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Clinton v New York 1998
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
9. BSA could expel any homosexual member they wanted because of first amendment right of expressive association
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Furman v Georgia 1972
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
10. FCRA mandated that places of public accommodation are prohibited from discrimination against blacks
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Powell v Alabama 1932
11. Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime - selectively incorporated right to lawful assembly to all state governments
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Engel v Vitale 1962
12. State govs must provide counsel in cases involving the death penalty to those who can't afford it
Powell v Alabama 1932
Bush v Gore 2000
Miller v California 1973
Gitlow v NY 1925
13. NY could not grant steamship company monopoly - increased federal power over interstate commerce
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Smith v Allwright 1944
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
14. Prohibited states from banning teaching of evolution in public schools
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Dennis v US 1951
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
15. Selectively incorporates freedom of the press - prevents prior restraint -state injunctions to prevent publication unconstitutional
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Near v Minnesota 1931
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
16. Florida recount in 2000 election was a violation of fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Roe v Wade 1973
Bush v Gore 2000
17. Ordered house districts to be near as equal as possible - enshrined principal of 'one man - one vote.'
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
18. Strikes by labor unions are constitutional
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
19. 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
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Bush v Gore 2000
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Miller v California 1973
20. Overturned Olmstead - warrants were required to listen in on phone conversation
Katz v US 1967
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Weeks v US 1914
21. Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons
Powell v Alabama 1932
Dennis v US 1951
New York Times v US 1971
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
22. Protesters have substantially fewer assembly rights in malls and other private establishments
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
23. 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
Katz v US 1967
Marbury v Madison 1803
Smith v Allwright 1944
24. Established national abortion guidelines by extending inferred right of privacy from Griswold
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Roe v Wade 1973
25. Separate but equal for races
US v Nixon 1974
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
26. Made the CRA 1964 apply to virtually all businesses
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
27. Federal courts = final authority on creation of house districts
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Baker v Carr 1962
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
28. Gave states more power to regulate abortion
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Virginia v Black 2002
South Dakota v Dole 1987
29. Forbids execution of defendants who are mentally retarded
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
30. Libel and obscenity not protected by first amendment - so three-part obscenity test established
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Miller v California 1973
Clinton v New York 1998
Katz v US 1967
31. You can burn the flag
Clinton v New York 1998
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Texas v Johnson 1989
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
32. Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools
Texas v Johnson 1989
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Near v Minnesota 1931
Engel v Vitale 1962
33. States cannot set term limits on members of congress
Oregon v Elstad 1985
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Gitlow v NY 1925
34. Confessions given immediately before rights are given means the confession is still admissible
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Oregon v Elstad 1985
US v Eichman 1990
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
35. Halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Bush v Gore 2000
Furman v Georgia 1972
36. Citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Kelo v New London 2005
Korematsu v US 1944
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
37. Segregate with al 'due and deliberate speed'
United States v Lopez 1995
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Marbury v Madison 1803
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
38. Executive efforts to prevent publication forbidden (Ellsburg & Vietnam)
Lawrence v Texas 2003
New York Times v US 1971
United States v Lopez 1995
South Dakota v Dole 1987
39. Threw out undergraduate system of selection - generally upheld Bakke
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Mapp v Ohio 1961
40. Fed can limit speech that doesn't lead to action (upholding Smith Act - which made it a crime to support any communist organization)
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Dennis v US 1951
41. '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
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
42. Race cannot be sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative district boundaries (1982 VRA wants them to do that - though)
Bush v Gore 2000
Katz v US 1967
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
43. Fighting words - certain offensive types of speech prohibited
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Gitlow v NY 1925
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
44. All defendants must be informed of legal rights before they are arrested
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Miranda v Arizona 1966
45. No such thing as executive privilege in criminal cases - but definitely at other times
Betts v Brady 1942
US v Nixon 1974
Oregon v Elstad 1985
New York Times v US 1971
46. Mandated 21-year-old drinking age (if you don't feds will take away all federal highway funds
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Weeks v US 1914
47. Extended exclusionary rule to the states
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Smith v Allwright 1944
48. Any defendant who asked for a lawyer had to have one granted to him - or any confession after that point is inadmissible
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
49. Clear and present danger (yelling fire) - Holmes
Clinton v New York 1998
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Schenck v US 1919
South Dakota v Dole 1987
50. Secular rather than religious purpose? neither promote nor discourage religion? avoid 'excessive entanglement?'
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Marbury v Madison 1803
Weeks v US 1914