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. Protesters have substantially fewer assembly rights in malls and other private establishments
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
2. Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime - selectively incorporated right to lawful assembly to all state governments
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Bush v Gore 2000
3. 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
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Buckley v Baleo 1976
4. Secular rather than religious purpose? neither promote nor discourage religion? avoid 'excessive entanglement?'
Virginia v Black 2002
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
5. FCRA mandated that places of public accommodation are prohibited from discrimination against blacks
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Marbury v Madison 1803
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Kelo v New London 2005
6. All defendants must be informed of legal rights before they are arrested
New York Times v US 1971
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Gitlow v NY 1925
7. Confessions given immediately before rights are given means the confession is still admissible
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Olmstead v US 1928
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
8. State prohibition of consensual sodomy in private is unreasonable invasion of privacy
Miller v California 1973
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Korematsu v US 1944
9. Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools
Engel v Vitale 1962
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
10. Not libel when they thought it was true at the time of printing
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Smith v Allwright 1944
Near v Minnesota 1931
Lawrence v Texas 2003
11. Race-based affirmative action was permissible so long as it was in the service of creating greater diversity
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Olmstead v US 1928
12. Fighting words - certain offensive types of speech prohibited
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
13. School district can suspend students for lewd or indecent speech
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
14. Clear and present danger (yelling fire) - Holmes
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Schenck v US 1919
Engel v Vitale 1962
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
15. Invalidated 1989 Flag Protection Act
Katz v US 1967
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Virginia v Black 2002
US v Eichman 1990
16. Extended exclusionary rule to the states
Furman v Georgia 1972
Marbury v Madison 1803
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Mapp v Ohio 1961
17. All state governments must provide an attorney in all cases for those who can't afford one - powerful repudiation of Betts v Brady
US v Eichman 1990
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
18. Right to privacy
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Betts v Brady 1942
19. Segregate with al 'due and deliberate speed'
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
20. Threw out undergraduate system of selection - generally upheld Bakke
Dennis v US 1951
Gitlow v NY 1925
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
21. NY could not grant steamship company monopoly - increased federal power over interstate commerce
Smith v Allwright 1944
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
22. Cross burning = 'fighting words' = unconstitutional
Weeks v US 1914
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Virginia v Black 2002
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
23. Forbids state-mandated bible reading
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Baker v Carr 1962
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
24. Federal courts = final authority on creation of house districts
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Baker v Carr 1962
25. Selectively incorporates freedom of the press - prevents prior restraint -state injunctions to prevent publication unconstitutional
Engel v Vitale 1962
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Near v Minnesota 1931
26. Prohibited states from banning teaching of evolution in public schools
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Dennis v US 1951
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
27. Overruled Powell - state govs do not have to provide lawyers to indigent defendants in capital cases
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Betts v Brady 1942
New York Times v US 1971
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
28. 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
Near v Minnesota 1931
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
29. '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
Kelo v New London 2005
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
30. States not allowed to prevent or punish inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Weeks v US 1914
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
31. You can burn the flag
Texas v Johnson 1989
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Korematsu v US 1944
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
32. Halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found
Furman v Georgia 1972
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Dennis v US 1951
33. BSA could expel any homosexual member they wanted because of first amendment right of expressive association
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
34. Banned presidential use of a line=item veto as a violation of legislative powers.
Powell v Alabama 1932
Near v Minnesota 1931
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Clinton v New York 1998
35. No such thing as executive privilege in criminal cases - but definitely at other times
US v Nixon 1974
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Fletcher v Peck 1810
US v Eichman 1990
36. 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
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
37. Made the CRA 1964 apply to virtually all businesses
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Roe v Wade 1973
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
38. States did not have power to tax the national bank - reinforces supremacy clause
Barron v Baltimore 1819
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Olmstead v US 1928
39. Ordered house districts to be near as equal as possible - enshrined principal of 'one man - one vote.'
Smith v Allwright 1944
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Miller v California 1973
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
40. Demonstrations near schools that disrupted classes could be legally banned
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Olmstead v US 1928
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Fletcher v Peck 1810
41. Established national abortion guidelines by extending inferred right of privacy from Griswold
South Dakota v Dole 1987
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Roe v Wade 1973
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
42. Legitimate use of eminent domain - town wanting to buy private land and turn it over to private developers
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Kelo v New London 2005
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
43. Students don't 'shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door -' Iowa students suspended for wearing armbands to protest Vietnam war
South Dakota v Dole 1987
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
44. 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
Virginia v Black 2002
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
45. Mandated 21-year-old drinking age (if you don't feds will take away all federal highway funds
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Texas v Johnson 1989
46. Citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Korematsu v US 1944
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
47. Established exclusionary rule
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Weeks v US 1914
48. Commerce clause of the constitution does not give congress the power to regulate guns near state operated schools
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
US v Nixon 1974
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
United States v Lopez 1995
49. Overturned Olmstead - warrants were required to listen in on phone conversation
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Katz v US 1967
Buckley v Baleo 1976
50. 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
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Gibbons v Ogden 1824