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. Halt to all death penalty punishments in nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found
Bush v Gore 2000
Furman v Georgia 1972
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
2. Confessions given immediately before rights are given means the confession is still admissible
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Katz v US 1967
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
3. African Americans denied right to vote in primaries = violate fifteenth amendment
Smith v Allwright 1944
Roe v Wade 1973
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
US v Eichman 1990
4. 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
Near v Minnesota 1931
Olmstead v US 1928
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Miranda v Arizona 1966
5. Florida recount in 2000 election was a violation of fourteenth amendment's equal protection clause
Bush v Gore 2000
Clinton v New York 1998
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
Near v Minnesota 1931
6. 'Bad Tendency Doctrine -' speech restricted if it has tendency to lead to illegal actions; selectively incorporated freedom of speech to states
Gitlow v NY 1925
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
New York Times v Sullivan 1964
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
7. 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
Baker v Carr 1962
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Weeks v US 1914
8. Demonstrations near schools that disrupted classes could be legally banned
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Buckley v Baleo 1976
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
9. Cities could legitimately require parade permits in the interest of pubic order (Jehovah's Witnesses march w/out permit)
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Marbury v Madison 1803
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
10. Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
Schenck v US 1919
11. Extended exclusionary rule to the states
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Mapp v Ohio 1961
Kelo v New London 2005
12. Threw out undergraduate system of selection - generally upheld Bakke
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
13. State prohibition of consensual sodomy in private is unreasonable invasion of privacy
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Roe v Wade 1973
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
14. 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
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
15. Clear and present danger (yelling fire) - Holmes
Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1987
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
Schenck v US 1919
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
16. 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
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
US v Eichman 1990
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Katz v US 1967
17. Executive efforts to prevent publication forbidden (Ellsburg & Vietnam)
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
New York Times v US 1971
Escobedo v Illinois 1964
18. Protesters have substantially fewer assembly rights in malls and other private establishments
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
19. States can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an 'undue burden' on women
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
Engel v Vitale 1962
US v Nixon 1974
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
20. 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
Weeks v US 1914
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992
21. Commerce clause of the constitution does not give congress the power to regulate guns near state operated schools
United States v Lopez 1995
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Marbury v Madison 1803
US v Eichman 1990
22. Ordered house districts to be near as equal as possible - enshrined principal of 'one man - one vote.'
Oregon v Elstad 1985
Furman v Georgia 1972
Dennis v US 1951
Wesberry v Sanders 1963
23. Established judicial review
United States v Lopez 1995
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Miller v California 1973
Marbury v Madison 1803
24. Established national abortion guidelines by extending inferred right of privacy from Griswold
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Dennis v US 1951
Roe v Wade 1973
25. Mandated 21-year-old drinking age (if you don't feds will take away all federal highway funds
South Dakota v Dole 1987
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Baker v Carr 1962
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
26. FCRA mandated that places of public accommodation are prohibited from discrimination against blacks
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Heart of Atlanta Motel v US 1964
27. Secular rather than religious purpose? neither promote nor discourage religion? avoid 'excessive entanglement?'
Lemon v Kurtzman 1971
Marbury v Madison 1803
Olmstead v US 1928
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
28. Prohibited states from banning teaching of evolution in public schools
Tinker v Des Moines 1969
Gibbons v Ogden 1824
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
New York Times v US 1971
29. Overturned Olmstead - warrants were required to listen in on phone conversation
Hustler Magazine v Falwell 1988
Mapp v Ohio 1961
US v Nixon 1974
Katz v US 1967
30. Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Lawrence v Texas 2003
Engel v Vitale 1962
31. Race cannot be sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative district boundaries (1982 VRA wants them to do that - though)
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954
Gitlow v NY 1925
32. 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
Thornhill v Alabama 1940
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
33. Libel and obscenity not protected by first amendment - so three-part obscenity test established
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Roe v Wade 1973
Miller v California 1973
Buckley v Baleo 1976
34. Segregate with al 'due and deliberate speed'
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Brown v Board 2nd 1955
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
35. Federal courts = final authority on creation of house districts
Griswold v Connecticut 1965
Baker v Carr 1962
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Katz v US 1967
36. Made the CRA 1964 apply to virtually all businesses
Powell v Alabama 1932
Cox v New Hampshire 1941
Katzenbach v McClung 1964
Boy Scouts of America v Dale 2000
37. Federal wiretaps of phone conversation is constitutional
Olmstead v US 1928
Plessy v Ferguson 1896
Roe v Wade 1973
Wisconsin v Yoder 1972
38. All state governments must provide an attorney in all cases for those who can't afford one - powerful repudiation of Betts v Brady
Clinton v New York 1998
Gideon v Wainwright 1963
Dartmouth college v woodward 1819
Lawrence v Texas 2003
39. Race-based affirmative action was permissible so long as it was in the service of creating greater diversity
Engel v Vitale 1962
Abington School District v Schempp 1963
Woodson v North Carolina 1976
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
40. Banned presidential use of a line=item veto as a violation of legislative powers.
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Clinton v New York 1998
United States v Lopez 1995
Katz v US 1967
41. Invalidated 1989 Flag Protection Act
US v Eichman 1990
Texas v Johnson 1989
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Mapp v Ohio 1961
42. Established exclusionary rule
Dennis v US 1951
Brandenburg v Ohio 1969
Lloyd corporation v Tanner 1972
Weeks v US 1914
43. First time court overturned state law on constitutional grounds.
Gregg v Georgia 1976
Virginia v Black 2002
Fletcher v Peck 1810
Texas v Johnson 1989
44. Fed can limit speech that doesn't lead to action (upholding Smith Act - which made it a crime to support any communist organization)
Dennis v US 1951
Engel v Vitale 1962
DeJonge v Oregon 1937
Furman v Georgia 1972
45. School district can suspend students for lewd or indecent speech
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Grayned v City of rockford 1972
US v Eichman 1990
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
46. Selectively incorporates freedom of the press - prevents prior restraint -state injunctions to prevent publication unconstitutional
Oregon v Elstad 1985
US v Nixon 1974
Near v Minnesota 1931
Shaw v Reno 1993 and Miller v Johnson 1995
47. No such thing as executive privilege in criminal cases - but definitely at other times
Grutter & Gratz v Bollinger 2003
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Lawrence v Texas 2003
US v Nixon 1974
48. States did not have power to tax the national bank - reinforces supremacy clause
McCulloch v Maryland 1819
Dennis v US 1951
Bethel School district v Fraser 1986
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942
49. All defendants must be informed of legal rights before they are arrested
Roe v Wade 1973
Miranda v Arizona 1966
Dennis v US 1951
Korematsu v US 1944
50. NY could not grant steamship company monopoly - increased federal power over interstate commerce
Barron v Baltimore 1819
Smith v Allwright 1944
Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978
Gibbons v Ogden 1824