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. Commerce clause of the constitution does not give congress the power to regulate guns near state operated schools
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
United States v Lopez 1995
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Mapp v Ohio 1961
2. 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
Schenck v US 1919
Korematsu v US 1944
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Buckley v Baleo 1976
3. Demonstrations near schools that disrupted classes could be legally banned
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
4. Cities could legitimately require parade permits in the interest of pubic order (Jehovah's Witnesses march w/out permit)
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
US v Eichman 1990
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
5. Protesters have substantially fewer assembly rights in malls and other private establishments
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Virginia v Black 2002
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
6. Secular rather than religious purpose? neither promote nor discourage religion? avoid 'excessive entanglement?'
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Mapp v Ohio 1961
7. States did not have power to tax the national bank - reinforces supremacy clause
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
8. States not allowed to prevent or punish inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Bush v Gore 2000
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Furman v Georgia 1972
9. Clear and present danger (yelling fire) - Holmes
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Schenck v US 1919
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Mapp v Ohio 1961
10. All defendants must be informed of legal rights before they are arrested
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Engel v Vitale 1962
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Miranda v Arizona 1966
11. Libel and obscenity not protected by first amendment - so three-part obscenity test established
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Miller v California 1973
Olmstead v US 1928
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
12. Forbids execution of defendants who are mentally retarded
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Barron v Baltimore 1819
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
13. Any defendant who asked for a lawyer had to have one granted to him - or any confession after that point is inadmissible
Betts v Brady 1942
Engel v Vitale 1962
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
14. Overturned Olmstead - warrants were required to listen in on phone conversation
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Katz v US 1967
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
15. NY could not grant steamship company monopoly - increased federal power over interstate commerce
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Schenck v US 1919
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Buckley v Baleo 1976
16. School district can suspend students for lewd or indecent speech
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Powell v Alabama 1932
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
17. Separate is not equal
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
18. Banned presidential use of a line=item veto as a violation of legislative powers.
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Dennis v US 1951
Clinton v New York 1998
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
19. Separate but equal for races
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Schenck v US 1919
Engel v Vitale 1962
20. BSA could expel any homosexual member they wanted because of first amendment right of expressive association
US v Nixon 1974
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
21. Overruled Powell - state govs do not have to provide lawyers to indigent defendants in capital cases
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Betts v Brady 1942
Furman v Georgia 1972
Korematsu v US 1944
22. Extended exclusionary rule to the states
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Engel v Vitale 1962
Gitlow v NY 1925
Mapp v Ohio 1961
23. Halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found
Miller v California 1973
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Furman v Georgia 1972
24. Threw out undergraduate system of selection - generally upheld Bakke
Clinton v New York 1998
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
25. States can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an 'undue burden' on women
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
United States v Lopez 1995
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Dennis v US 1951
26. Established exclusionary rule
Weeks v US 1914
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Bush v Gore 2000
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
27. Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Near v Minnesota 1931
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
28. Race-based affirmative action was permissible so long as it was in the service of creating greater diversity
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Powell v Alabama 1932
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
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
30. Ordered house districts to be near as equal as possible - enshrined principal of 'one man - one vote.'
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Furman v Georgia 1972
31. Right to privacy
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
32. Citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Gitlow v NY 1925
Korematsu v US 1944
33. Segregate with al 'due and deliberate speed'
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Miranda v Arizona 1966
34. State prohibition of consensual sodomy in private is unreasonable invasion of privacy
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Miller v California 1973
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
35. Mandated 21-year-old drinking age (if you don't feds will take away all federal highway funds
Miller v California 1973
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
36. Students don't 'shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door -' Iowa students suspended for wearing armbands to protest Vietnam war
Kelo v New London 2005
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
37. Fighting words - certain offensive types of speech prohibited
Kelo v New London 2005
Bush v Gore 2000
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
38. No such thing as executive privilege in criminal cases - but definitely at other times
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
US v Nixon 1974
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
39. Confessions given immediately before rights are given means the confession is still admissible
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Oregon v Elstad 1985
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
United States v Lopez 1995
40. 'Bad Tendency Doctrine -' speech restricted if it has tendency to lead to illegal actions; selectively incorporated freedom of speech to states
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Gitlow v NY 1925
41. All state governments must provide an attorney in all cases for those who can't afford one - powerful repudiation of Betts v Brady
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Korematsu v US 1944
Virginia v Black 2002
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
42. Established national abortion guidelines by extending inferred right of privacy from Griswold
Miller v California 1973
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Roe v Wade 1973
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
43. Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Katz v US 1967
US v Eichman 1990
Engel v Vitale 1962
44. FCRA mandated that places of public accommodation are prohibited from discrimination against blacks
Roe v Wade 1973
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Schenck v US 1919
45. First time court overturned state law on constitutional grounds.
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
US v Eichman 1990
46. 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
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Weeks v US 1914
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Roe v Wade 1973
47. African Americans denied right to vote in primaries = violate fifteenth amendment
Baker v Carr 1962
Smith v Allwright 1944
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
US v Eichman 1990
48. Federal courts = final authority on creation of house districts
Weeks v US 1914
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Baker v Carr 1962
Engel v Vitale 1962
49. 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
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Lawrence v Texas 2003
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
50. State govs must provide counsel in cases involving the death penalty to those who can't afford it
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Powell v Alabama 1932
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986