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. No such thing as executive privilege in criminal cases - but definitely at other times
Miller v California 1973
Engel v Vitale 1962
US v Nixon 1974
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
2. Banned presidential use of a line=item veto as a violation of legislative powers.
Powell v Alabama 1932
Clinton v New York 1998
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Miranda v Arizona 1966
3. Cities could legitimately require parade permits in the interest of pubic order (Jehovah's Witnesses march w/out permit)
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
4. Invalidated 1989 Flag Protection Act
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Roe v Wade 1973
Bush v Gore 2000
US v Eichman 1990
5. Florida recount in 2000 election was a violation of fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Bush v Gore 2000
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
Clinton v New York 1998
6. Established exclusionary rule
Weeks v US 1914
US v Eichman 1990
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
7. African Americans denied right to vote in primaries = violate fifteenth amendment
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Smith v Allwright 1944
Korematsu v US 1944
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
8. NC makes mandatory punishment for certain crimes - deemed unconstitutional
Furman v Georgia 1972
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Miller v California 1973
9. Extended exclusionary rule to the states
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Baker v Carr 1962
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
10. States did not have power to tax the national bank - reinforces supremacy clause
Betts v Brady 1942
Gregg v Georgia 1976
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
11. 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
US v Nixon 1974
Powell v Alabama 1932
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Lawrence v Texas 2003
12. Separate is not equal
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Gregg v Georgia 1976
13. All state governments must provide an attorney in all cases for those who can't afford one - powerful repudiation of Betts v Brady
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Olmstead v US 1928
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Mapp v Ohio 1961
14. Cross burning = 'fighting words' = unconstitutional
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Virginia v Black 2002
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
15. Selectively incorporates freedom of the press - prevents prior restraint -state injunctions to prevent publication unconstitutional
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Near v Minnesota 1931
Weeks v US 1914
Miranda v Arizona 1966
16. Executive efforts to prevent publication forbidden (Ellsburg & Vietnam)
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
New York Times v US 1971
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Miranda v Arizona 1966
17. Established national abortion guidelines by extending inferred right of privacy from Griswold
Roe v Wade 1973
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Mapp v Ohio 1961
18. Students don't 'shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door -' Iowa students suspended for wearing armbands to protest Vietnam war
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Furman v Georgia 1972
Texas v Johnson 1989
19. State govs must provide counsel in cases involving the death penalty to those who can't afford it
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Powell v Alabama 1932
Kelo v New London 2005
20. You can burn the flag
Engel v Vitale 1962
Texas v Johnson 1989
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Furman v Georgia 1972
21. Strikes by labor unions are constitutional
Katz v US 1967
Mapp v Ohio 1961
United States v Lopez 1995
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
22. Threw out undergraduate system of selection - generally upheld Bakke
Virginia v Black 2002
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Olmstead v US 1928
23. 'Bad Tendency Doctrine -' speech restricted if it has tendency to lead to illegal actions; selectively incorporated freedom of speech to states
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Gitlow v NY 1925
24. States not allowed to prevent or punish inflammatory speech unless it will lead to imminent lawless action
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Weeks v US 1914
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
25. Halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Furman v Georgia 1972
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
26. 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
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Dennis v US 1951
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
27. Gave states more power to regulate abortion
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
28. Citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order
New York Times v US 1971
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Korematsu v US 1944
29. Demonstrations near schools that disrupted classes could be legally banned
Baker v Carr 1962
New York Times v US 1971
Marbury v Madison 1803
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
30. Federal courts = final authority on creation of house districts
Baker v Carr 1962
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
31. Overturned Olmstead - warrants were required to listen in on phone conversation
Katz v US 1967
Miller v California 1973
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
32. FCRA mandated that places of public accommodation are prohibited from discrimination against blacks
Gregg v Georgia 1976
US Term Limits v Thornton 1995
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
Barron v Baltimore 1819
33. Segregate with al 'due and deliberate speed'
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
US v Nixon 1974
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
34. 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
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Marbury v Madison 1803
Furman v Georgia 1972
35. 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
Texas v Johnson 1989
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Buckley v Baleo 1976
36. All defendants must be informed of legal rights before they are arrested
Texas v Johnson 1989
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Olmstead v US 1928
37. Fighting words - certain offensive types of speech prohibited
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Korematsu v US 1944
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Fletcher v Peck 1810
38. Confessions given immediately before rights are given means the confession is still admissible
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Smith v Allwright 1944
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Gitlow v NY 1925
39. 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
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
40. Ordered house districts to be near as equal as possible - enshrined principal of 'one man - one vote.'
Bush v Gore 2000
Korematsu v US 1944
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Katz v US 1967
41. Federal wiretaps of phone conversation is constitutional
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Olmstead v US 1928
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
42. Legitimate use of eminent domain - town wanting to buy private land and turn it over to private developers
Baker v Carr 1962
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Kelo v New London 2005
Schenck v US 1919
43. Forbids execution of defendants who are mentally retarded
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
US v Nixon 1974
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
44. First time court overturned state law on constitutional grounds.
Texas v Johnson 1989
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Fletcher v Peck 1810
45. Protesters have substantially fewer assembly rights in malls and other private establishments
Roe v Wade 1973
Katz v US 1967
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
46. Right to privacy
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Texas v Johnson 1989
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
47. Any defendant who asked for a lawyer had to have one granted to him - or any confession after that point is inadmissible
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
48. Race cannot be sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative district boundaries (1982 VRA wants them to do that - though)
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
US v Eichman 1990
49. Commerce clause of the constitution does not give congress the power to regulate guns near state operated schools
United States v Lopez 1995
Baker v Carr 1962
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
50. Secular rather than religious purpose? neither promote nor discourage religion? avoid 'excessive entanglement?'
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Bush v Gore 2000
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
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