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. Fighting words - certain offensive types of speech prohibited
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Furman v Georgia 1972
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
2. Commerce clause of the constitution does not give congress the power to regulate guns near state operated schools
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
United States v Lopez 1995
Mapp v Ohio 1961
3. 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
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
4. 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
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
5. Prohibited states from banning teaching of evolution in public schools
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
US v Nixon 1974
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
6. 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
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Buckley v Baleo 1976
7. Cities could legitimately require parade permits in the interest of pubic order (Jehovah's Witnesses march w/out permit)
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
8. Invalidated 1989 Flag Protection Act
Texas v Johnson 1989
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
US v Eichman 1990
9. Protesters have substantially fewer assembly rights in malls and other private establishments
Olmstead v US 1928
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
10. You can burn the flag
Texas v Johnson 1989
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Baker v Carr 1962
Korematsu v US 1944
11. Any defendant who asked for a lawyer had to have one granted to him - or any confession after that point is inadmissible
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
12. Forbids execution of defendants who are mentally retarded
Engel v Vitale 1962
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Gitlow v NY 1925
Gregg v Georgia 1976
13. Gave states more power to regulate abortion
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Olmstead v US 1928
14. Race cannot be sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative district boundaries (1982 VRA wants them to do that - though)
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Texas v Johnson 1989
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
South Dakota v Dole 1987
15. 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
Kelo v New London 2005
Near v Minnesota 1931
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Barron v Baltimore 1819
16. States can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an 'undue burden' on women
Furman v Georgia 1972
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Oregon v Elstad 1985
17. State govs must provide counsel in cases involving the death penalty to those who can't afford it
Katz v US 1967
Engel v Vitale 1962
Powell v Alabama 1932
Clinton v New York 1998
18. Overturned Olmstead - warrants were required to listen in on phone conversation
Katz v US 1967
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Gitlow v NY 1925
US v Eichman 1990
19. NY could not grant steamship company monopoly - increased federal power over interstate commerce
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
20. African Americans denied right to vote in primaries = violate fifteenth amendment
Smith v Allwright 1944
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
21. Not libel when they thought it was true at the time of printing
US v Nixon 1974
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Furman v Georgia 1972
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
22. Libel and obscenity not protected by first amendment - so three-part obscenity test established
Miller v California 1973
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Texas v Johnson 1989
23. Citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Korematsu v US 1944
Clinton v New York 1998
Weeks v US 1914
24. Established exclusionary rule
Kelo v New London 2005
Weeks v US 1914
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
25. 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
United States v Lopez 1995
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Powell v Alabama 1932
26. State prohibition of consensual sodomy in private is unreasonable invasion of privacy
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
South Dakota v Dole 1987
27. Confessions given immediately before rights are given means the confession is still admissible
United States v Lopez 1995
Powell v Alabama 1932
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Weeks v US 1914
28. 'Bad Tendency Doctrine -' speech restricted if it has tendency to lead to illegal actions; selectively incorporated freedom of speech to states
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Gitlow v NY 1925
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
29. 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
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Baker v Carr 1962
30. States did not have power to tax the national bank - reinforces supremacy clause
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
31. Federal wiretaps of phone conversation is constitutional
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
United States v Lopez 1995
Texas v Johnson 1989
Olmstead v US 1928
32. No such thing as executive privilege in criminal cases - but definitely at other times
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
US v Nixon 1974
Gitlow v NY 1925
Texas v Johnson 1989
33. Executive efforts to prevent publication forbidden (Ellsburg & Vietnam)
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
New York Times v US 1971
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
34. Right to privacy
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Miller v California 1973
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
35. Separate but equal for races
US v Nixon 1974
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
36. Banned presidential use of a line=item veto as a violation of legislative powers.
Near v Minnesota 1931
Clinton v New York 1998
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Roe v Wade 1973
37. Forbids state-mandated bible reading
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Katz v US 1967
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Texas v Johnson 1989
38. Strikes by labor unions are constitutional
Bush v Gore 2000
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
South Dakota v Dole 1987
39. Florida recount in 2000 election was a violation of fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Bush v Gore 2000
40. Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime - selectively incorporated right to lawful assembly to all state governments
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
South Dakota v Dole 1987
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
41. Selectively incorporates freedom of the press - prevents prior restraint -state injunctions to prevent publication unconstitutional
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Clinton v New York 1998
Near v Minnesota 1931
42. Federal courts = final authority on creation of house districts
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Baker v Carr 1962
Roe v Wade 1973
Engel v Vitale 1962
43. Demonstrations near schools that disrupted classes could be legally banned
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Clinton v New York 1998
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
44. BSA could expel any homosexual member they wanted because of first amendment right of expressive association
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Katz v US 1967
45. Established judicial review
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Marbury v Madison 1803
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
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
US v Eichman 1990
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Schenck v US 1919
47. Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Korematsu v US 1944
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
48. States not allowed to prevent or punish inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action
Miller v California 1973
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Furman v Georgia 1972
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
49. Made the CRA 1964 apply to virtually all businesses
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Marbury v Madison 1803
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
50. School district can suspend students for lewd or indecent speech
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
New York Times v US 1971
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Sorry!:) No result found.
Can you answer 50 questions in 15 minutes?
Let me suggest you:
Browse all subjects
Browse all tests
Most popular tests
Major Subjects
Tests & Exams
AP
CLEP
DSST
GRE
SAT
GMAT
Certifications
CISSP go to https://www.isc2.org/
PMP
ITIL
RHCE
MCTS
More...
IT Skills
Android Programming
Data Modeling
Objective C Programming
Basic Python Programming
Adobe Illustrator
More...
Business Skills
Advertising Techniques
Business Accounting Basics
Business Strategy
Human Resource Management
Marketing Basics
More...
Soft Skills
Body Language
People Skills
Public Speaking
Persuasion
Job Hunting And Resumes
More...
Vocabulary
GRE Vocab
SAT Vocab
TOEFL Essential Vocab
Basic English Words For All
Global Words You Should Know
Business English
More...
Languages
AP German Vocab
AP Latin Vocab
SAT Subject Test: French
Italian Survival
Norwegian Survival
More...
Engineering
Audio Engineering
Computer Science Engineering
Aerospace Engineering
Chemical Engineering
Structural Engineering
More...
Health Sciences
Basic Nursing Skills
Health Science Language Fundamentals
Veterinary Technology Medical Language
Cardiology
Clinical Surgery
More...
English
Grammar Fundamentals
Literary And Rhetorical Vocab
Elements Of Style Vocab
Introduction To English Major
Complete Advanced Sentences
Literature
Homonyms
More...
Math
Algebra Formulas
Basic Arithmetic: Measurements
Metric Conversions
Geometric Properties
Important Math Facts
Number Sense Vocab
Business Math
More...
Other Major Subjects
Science
Economics
History
Law
Performing-arts
Cooking
Logic & Reasoning
Trivia
Browse all subjects
Browse all tests
Most popular tests