Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

TAM > Case Law > Flashcards

Case Law Flashcards

1
Q

Right to remain silent

A

Miranda v Arizona

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

expands the right of the govt to search and surveil without court order, and now applies to certain domestic terrorism situations

A

US Patriot Act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

established the test about what is free speech on school campuses

A

Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What did Bethel School District v Fraser and Hazlewood School District v Kuhlmeier oppose?

A

The decision in Tinker v Des Moines, stating that lewd speech at a school assembly is not constitutionally protected

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

authorized removal/suspension of employee if the reason is based on employee’s speech which affects the employing agency

A

Arnett v Kennedy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

If employee did not speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, then no first amendment protection

A

Garcetti v Ceballos

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Duty to warn

A

Tarasoff v Regents of the Univ of California

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Offers an objective standard for evaluating if a statement is a true threat, thus making it unprotected by the first amendment

A

US v Orozco-Santillan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Advocacy of the use of force or of law violation is protected unless such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action

A

Brandenburg v Ohio

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

intimidation is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death

A

Virginia v Black

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

established the test about what is considered free speech on school campuses as long as it does not materially disrupt or substantially disorder or invade the rights of others

A

Tinker v Des Moines Independent Community School District

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

The decision in ____ v ____, held that a student’s lewd speech at a school assembly is not constitutionally protected, reaffirming the principal in the other case ___ v ____, that students’ rights in public schools don’t automatically coextend with rights of adults in other settings

A

Bethel School District v Fraser………NJ v TLO

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

First amendment isn’t violated by educators exercising reasonable editorial powers over a school newspaper

A

Hazlewood School District v Kuhlmeier

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

The Supreme Court balanced governmental interests and employee rights, sustaining the constitutionality of federal statue that authorized removal or suspension without pay of an employee

A

Arnett v Kennedy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

If an employee didn’t speak as a citizen on a matter of public concern, then the employee has no first amendment cause of action based on employer’s reaction to the speech

A

Garcetti v Ceballos

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

the First Amendment does not protect true threats. The Court also explained that political hyperbole does not qualify as such a threat.

A

Watts v United States

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Also offers an objective standard of a true threat, emphasizing whether a reasonable person would perceive the statement as a serious expression

A

United States v Orozco-Santillan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school officials did not violate a student’s First Amendment right of free expression when they temporarily expelled him for submitting a violent-themed poem to his English teacher.

A

LaVine v Blaine School District

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President

A

Rankin v McPherson

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

students cannot be penalized for what they are thinking. If thoughts are then expressed in speech, the ability of the school to censor or punish the speech will be determined by whether it is a (1) true threat or (2) disruptive of the normal operation of the school

A

D.G. v Independent School District No. 11

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

a student’s rights were not violated when he got expelled after publishing a website with offensive comments about his algebra teacher, including a section “why should the teacher die” — although it occurred off school grounds, it substantially affected school functions, as the teacher became genuinely afraid,

A

J.S. v Bethlehem Area School District

22
Q

For public sector employee speech to be protected, it must (1) involve an issue of public concern, like a significant event (2) outweigh the govt employer’s interest in avoiding impediments to carrying out its mission

A

Connick v Meyers

23
Q

Defendants who are intellectually disabled cannot be sentenced to death

A

Atkins v Virginia

24
Q

States can set own insanity standards which leads to convoluted understanding

A

Clark v Arizona

25
Q

A state may only confine a person to a psychiatric hospital against that person’s will if the sate proves by clear and convincing evidence that the person is mentally ill and dangerous

A

Addington v Texas

26
Q

Public school officials are subject to the 4th amendment because as “public school officials” they act under the umbrella of govt authority. But, because of the nature of school, they do not need to show probable cause; instead, they must show reasonable concern.

A

NJ v TLO

27
Q

employers may be liable to their employees for harassment by non-employees. Courts have found liability for this so-called “third-party harassment” in some of the following fact-specific contexts: waitresses harassed by their dining customers; casino dealers suffering harassment from gamblers at the table; and vendors being harassed by clients they visit onsite for sales and service calls

A

Gardner v CLC of Pascagoula

28
Q

Capital punishment is unconstitutional for people under 16

A

Thompson v Oklahoma

29
Q

Capital punishment is unconstitutional for people under 18

A

Roper v Simmons

30
Q

Life without parole unconstitutional for people under 18 convicted of crimes other than homicide

A

Graham v Florida

31
Q

Life without parole unconstitutional for people under 18 even if convicted of homicide

A

Miller v Alabama

32
Q

Supreme Court case concerning whether conviction of threatening another person over interstate lines requires proof of subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening

A

Elonis v United States

33
Q

This case created a clear distinction between the duty to protect and the subordinate duty to warn and made communications by a third party indicating threatening statements equivalent to statements made directly by that person.

A

Ewing v Goldstein

34
Q

In civil cases, under most circumstances, a prosecutor receives absolute immunity and is protected from civil liability while acting in an official capacity, which is when it’s an integral part of the judicial process

A

Falls v Superior Court (Samaniego)

35
Q

Prosecutors in civil cases can be liable if make statements that minimize the actual danger to a victim

A

M.B. v City of San Diego

36
Q

Prosecutors in civil cases can be liable if request that a citizen perform an official function that involves a foreseeable risk of danger

A

Walker v County of Los Angeles

37
Q

a univ has a special relationship with a student and corresponding duty to take reasonable measures to prevent his or her suicide

A

Dzung Duy Nguyen v Massachusetts’s Institute of Technology

38
Q

postsecondary schools have a duty to keep students safe from foreseeable criminal assaults while they’re engaged as part of the school’s curriculum/services

A

Rosen v Regents of the Univ of California

39
Q

When campus based law enforcement officers are involved, there is a split in authority whether the standard to be applied is __________ or ______________

A

probable cause or reasonable under the circumstances

40
Q

When campus based law enforcement officers are involved, the lower threshold of “reasonable under the circumstances” is applied when the officers act as agents of the school

A

State of Florida v N.G.B.

41
Q

When campus based law enforcement officers are involved, the higher threshold of “probable cause” when the school conducts the search at the request of the campus based officer

A

New Hampshire v Heirtzler

42
Q

The federal govt can only criminalize those threats of violence directed against the president

A

R.A.V. v St. Paul Minnesota

43
Q

Tarasoff 1974 vs 1976

A

duty to warn vs protect

44
Q

both prongs of civil commitment, mental illness and dangerousness, must be met to justify involuntary commitement

A

foucha v louisiana

45
Q

defendant should not be released from invol commitment following NGRI until no longer dangerous

A

Jones v US

46
Q

Notice t the convicted offender and an adversary hearing were necessary before invol correctional transfer but representation by counsel was not

A

Vitek v Jones

47
Q

defendant must be notified prior to the evaluation if the results of a pretrial evaluation could be used at capital sentencing

A

Estelle v Smith

48
Q

Held that psychiatrists had some expertise in predicting violent behavior and allowed testimony in responses to hypothetical questions

A

barefoot v estelle

49
Q

state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in the community by himself or with assistance

A

O’Connor v Donaldson

50
Q

Allowed post-sentence commitment of sexually violent predators based on finding of dangerousness to self or others related to a mental abnormality or personality disorder

A

Kansas v Hendricks

51
Q

7 types of violent true believers

A

Fledgling
Affiliative
Psychotic
Criminal
Opportunistic
Unwavering
Betrayer

TAM (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions