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
US v Nixon 1974
Near v Minnesota 1931
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
2. Citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order
Korematsu v US 1944
Gitlow v NY 1925
Bush v Gore 2000
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
3. BSA could expel any homosexual member they wanted because of first amendment right of expressive association
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Dennis v US 1951
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
4. Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
United States v Lopez 1995
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
5. Race-based affirmative action was permissible so long as it was in the service of creating greater diversity
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
6. 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
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Fletcher v Peck 1810
7. Banned presidential use of a line=item veto as a violation of legislative powers.
Clinton v New York 1998
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
8. 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
Schenck v US 1919
Near v Minnesota 1931
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
9. Students don't 'shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door -' Iowa students suspended for wearing armbands to protest Vietnam war
Weeks v US 1914
Smith v Allwright 1944
Powell v Alabama 1932
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
10. Confessions given immediately before rights are given means the confession is still admissible
Marbury v Madison 1803
US v Eichman 1990
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Katz v US 1967
11. States did not have power to tax the national bank - reinforces supremacy clause
Texas v Johnson 1989
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
12. Prohibited states from banning teaching of evolution in public schools
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Marbury v Madison 1803
Clinton v New York 1998
13. Fighting words - certain offensive types of speech prohibited
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Smith v Allwright 1944
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
14. Separate is not equal
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Texas v Johnson 1989
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
15. No such thing as executive privilege in criminal cases - but definitely at other times
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Powell v Alabama 1932
US v Nixon 1974
16. Segregate with al 'due and deliberate speed'
New York Times v US 1971
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Gitlow v NY 1925
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
17. Extended exclusionary rule to the states
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
18. States can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an 'undue burden' on women
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Kelo v New London 2005
Bush v Gore 2000
19. NC makes mandatory punishment for certain crimes - deemed unconstitutional
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Texas v Johnson 1989
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
20. 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
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Smith v Allwright 1944
Schenck v US 1919
Barron v Baltimore 1819
21. Forbids state-mandated bible reading
United States v Lopez 1995
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Marbury v Madison 1803
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
22. Demonstrations near schools that disrupted classes could be legally banned
Bush v Gore 2000
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Katz v US 1967
Near v Minnesota 1931
23. Secular rather than religious purpose? neither promote nor discourage religion? avoid 'excessive entanglement?'
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Miller v California 1973
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
24. Not libel when they thought it was true at the time of printing
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Katz v US 1967
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
25. Fed can limit speech that doesn't lead to action (upholding Smith Act - which made it a crime to support any communist organization)
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Olmstead v US 1928
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Dennis v US 1951
26. 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
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Dennis v US 1951
New York Times v US 1971
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
27. NY could not grant steamship company monopoly - increased federal power over interstate commerce
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
28. Commerce clause of the constitution does not give congress the power to regulate guns near state operated schools
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Schenck v US 1919
United States v Lopez 1995
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
29. You can burn the flag
Texas v Johnson 1989
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Korematsu v US 1944
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
30. Right to privacy
US v Nixon 1974
Korematsu v US 1944
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Fletcher v Peck 1810
31. Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools
Powell v Alabama 1932
Furman v Georgia 1972
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Engel v Vitale 1962
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
Powell v Alabama 1932
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
New York Times v US 1971
33. Florida recount in 2000 election was a violation of fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause
Bush v Gore 2000
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Gitlow v NY 1925
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
34. Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime - selectively incorporated right to lawful assembly to all state governments
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Miranda v Arizona 1966
35. 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
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
36. Halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Texas v Johnson 1989
Furman v Georgia 1972
Mapp v Ohio 1961
37. Cities could legitimately require parade permits in the interest of pubic order (Jehovah's Witnesses march w/out permit)
New York Times v US 1971
Korematsu v US 1944
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
38. Ordered house districts to be near as equal as possible - enshrined principal of 'one man - one vote.'
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
United States v Lopez 1995
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
39. 'Bad Tendency Doctrine -' speech restricted if it has tendency to lead to illegal actions; selectively incorporated freedom of speech to states
Baker v Carr 1962
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Gitlow v NY 1925
US v Nixon 1974
40. States cannot set term limits on members of congress
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Miller v California 1973
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
41. Established national abortion guidelines by extending inferred right of privacy from Griswold
Marbury v Madison 1803
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Roe v Wade 1973
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
42. All state governments must provide an attorney in all cases for those who can't afford one - powerful repudiation of Betts v Brady
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
Gitlow v NY 1925
Korematsu v US 1944
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
43. Overruled Powell - state govs do not have to provide lawyers to indigent defendants in capital cases
Betts v Brady 1942
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Buckley v Baleo 1976
44. Selectively incorporates freedom of the press - prevents prior restraint -state injunctions to prevent publication unconstitutional
Olmstead v US 1928
Betts v Brady 1942
Korematsu v US 1944
Near v Minnesota 1931
45. Gave states more power to regulate abortion
US v Eichman 1990
Miller v California 1973
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
46. States not allowed to prevent or punish inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Dennis v US 1951
47. Separate but equal for races
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Lawrence v Texas 2003
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
48. Invalidated 1989 Flag Protection Act
Bush v Gore 2000
US v Eichman 1990
Miller v California 1973
Olmstead v US 1928
49. Made the CRA 1964 apply to virtually all businesses
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
50. Federal wiretaps of phone conversation is constitutional
Olmstead v US 1928
Korematsu v US 1944
US v Nixon 1974
Mapp v Ohio 1961