Select a Chapter to start the court case quiz.
Court case: The Slaughterhouse Cases
When it comes to privileges and immunities
the Court clearly defines them.
the Court gives specific insights into privileges and immunities.
the Court refuses to define privileges and immunities.
none of these
Court case: BMW of North America v. Gore
The Court accepts that BMW’s conduct was egregious enough to justify the damages here.
Court case: Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Tumey is the key precedent for determining when a judge should recuse herself.
Punitive damages enter the zone of violating due process
whenever they are imposed.
when they are imposed with clear standards.
when they are grossly excessive.
For the Court, the main impetus for the 13-15 Amendments is a focus on slavery.
Court case: Nebbia v. New York
The Court finds the act a violation of the 14th Amendment.
Court case: Lochner v. New York
Holmes is unhappy that the Court seems to be taking a laissez fair approach here.
The effect of the law on the butchers here
is not a restraint on them.
is a restraint on them.
has no real effect on them.
Subject to constitutional restraint private rights
reign supreme.
always win out in relation to the public welfare.
must yield to public requirement.
Field argues the 13-15 Amendments actually apply to all people.
Court case: Allgeyer v. Louisiana
The contract here is invalid because it was made outside the state.
The right to sell and purchase labor is protected by the 14th Amendment.
Court case: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
The prescribed payment here
is tied directly to services rendered.
is not tied directly to services rendered.
is essential under the 14th Amendment.
To be constitutional, a law must be
reasonable.
not arbitrary.
deemed to promote the general welfare.
all of these
Court case: West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
Liberty implies
arbitrary restraint.
immunity from reasonable regulations.
the interests of community do not matter.
Punitive damages are meant to deter repetition of unlawful conduct.
The Court does find rights violated here from the 13th Amendment.
Roberts believes the Court was right to use probability bias here as the test.
To determine if damages are appropriate the court assesses
degree of reprehensibility of a defendant’s conduct.
The ratio of the award between damage and harm inflicted.
a comparison of the sanctions to the misconduct.
About Adkins, the Court says
it was a departure from accepted principles.
it is reconcilable with other rulings.
this regulation must be invalid if regulation of women in the workplace is invalid.
This regulation
depends on the number of hours a baker works per week.
must have a more direct relation to be valid.
there must be just a small amount of unhealthiness to warrant a decrease in liberty.
The Court argues it will decide on violations of liberty
for all people.
in all circumstances.
never.
on a case-by-case basis.
Court case: Williamson v. Lee Optical Company
The law does not require
a balancing of rights and due process.
a new examination for every fitting.
both a balancing of rights and due process and a new examination for every fitting.
neither a balancing of rights and due process and a new examination for every fitting.
Court case: Muller v. Oregon
Women’s physical structure, for the Court, means work will be easy for them.
It is fundamental that private rights can be regulated for common interest.
Getting rid of exploitation of a class of workers is a legitimate state interest.
The Court says saving the race is a clear justification for limiting women’s ability to work.
The Court must weight policy power against individual liberty.
The general right to contract
is protected by the 10th Amendment.
is protected by the 5th Amendment.
is protected by the 14th Amendment.
The Court agrees that the law her is simply another police power that is valid.
The Court upholds Adkins here.
The Court must decide, with the 5th and 14th Amendments, whether the governmental authority is reasonable.
The moral question, implicit in contracts, is ignored here.
The campaign here
had little effect on the judge here.
was timed to make it critical to the case.
was meant to not influence anything beyond the election.
For the Court, this law is nothing but price fixing.
The Court says the legislature decides on the advantages and disadvantages of a law.
The Court will no longer use the 14th Amendment to strike down laws.
The Court argues that analyzing awards must be done through a specific state only.
The use of police powers is justified
to protect health and morals.
when a contract violates the law.
to protect the general welfare.
Due process has been violated here because there were no contracts in the state and no business conducted in the state.
Scalia believes the Court does more harm than good with its decision here.
