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