Go Premium for $25 and get
Already a member? Log in here.
Along with the bar exam, the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (MPRE) is an essential step toward becoming a practicing legal professional. Commonly referred to as the ethics bar exam, the MPRE is shorter than its counterpart and, as
United States officials seized Algerian humanitarian-aid worker Lakhdar Boumediene in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The officials shipped Boumediene to the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. There, he had an opportunity to contest the factual basis for his designation as an enemy combatant before a special tribunal.
In Washington v. Glucksberg, the United States Supreme Court accepted the case to determine whether a fundamental right to assisted suicide existed under the Due Process Clause.
Although the MPRE might seem like a walk in the park compared to the bar exam, you don’t want a failed MPRE standing between you and a law license. For those of you cramming for the MPRE, here are 8 last-second tips for passing the MPRE.
The United States Supreme Court granted cert in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), to determine whether the Establishment Clause permits government-funded tuition assistance to low-income students, most of whom attend religious schools.
The United States Supreme Court took up the case in City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617 (1978), to decide whether a state could prohibit the deposit of out-of-state waste in landfills within its borders without running afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause.
This is the latest in a series of Quimbee.com case brief videos. Have you signed up for your Quimbee membership? The American Bar Association offers three months of Quimbee study aids (a $72 value) for law student members. Ready to go all in? Go Platinum and get 3 years of unlimited
The United States Supreme Court took up the case in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974), to determine whether a publisher of defamatory material against a private person can avoid liability on First Amendment grounds.
A group of political parties and candidates challenged the Federal Election Campaign Act on First Amendment grounds in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
The Federal Lottery Act of 1895 cited moral grounds to forbid anyone from shipping lottery tickets across state lines. The United States indicted Charles Champion for violating the act, and he sought a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the law.
In United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). The Court concluded that VMI’s male-only admissions policy could not survive constitutional scrutiny.
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), was a landmark decision that cleared the way for integration of neighborhoods and communities throughout the United States.
The United States Supreme Court had to decide in Wickard v. Filburn whether Congress could regulate purely in-state activities like the private cultivation of wheat for personal consumption under its Commerce Clause authority.
This is the latest in a series of Quimbee.com case brief videos. Have you signed up for your Quimbee membership? The American Bar Association offers three months of Quimbee study aids (a $72 value) for law student members. Ready to go all in? Go Platinum and get 3 years of unlimited
Washington, D.C., administered a written exam to applicants to the police department. The test, though administered uniformly to all applicants, disqualified four times as many black candidates as white candidates. As a result, the police department was 80 percent white in a city that was 70 percent black.
This is the latest in a series of Quimbee.com case brief videos. Have you signed up for your Quimbee membership? The American Bar Association offers three months of Quimbee study aids (a $72 value) for law student members. And if you go Premium, you’ll receive Quimbee Legal Ethics Outline (a
This is the latest in a series of Quimbee.com case brief videos. Have you signed up for your Quimbee membership? The American Bar Association offers three months of Quimbee study aids (a $72 value) for law student members. And if you go Premium, you’ll receive Quimbee Legal Ethics Outline (a
Ku Klux Klansman Clarence Brandenburg was charged with violating an Ohio state law that made it a crime to advocate “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.” Brandenburg was convicted, and he appealed on the ground that the state law violated the First Amendment.
LeRoy Carhart and other doctors challenged the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, arguing that the law was both void for vagueness and unduly burdensome on women’s right to abortions. In Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), the United States Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the federal act.
In 1996, Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act. The act allowed the president to veto line items, meaning specific provisions, within legislation related to discretionary budget authority, new direct spending, or limited tax benefits without vetoing the remainder of the act.
The Heart of Atlanta Motel was situated next to a Georgia interstate and served mostly out-of-state guests. The motel sued the government, seeking a declaratory judgment that Congress did not have authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the Civil Rights Act. The motel also alleged due-process violations over the deprivation of its right to choose its guests.
This is the latest in a series of Quimbee.com case brief videos. Have you signed up for your Quimbee membership? The American Bar Association offers three months of Quimbee study aids (a $72 value) for law student members. And if you go Premium, you’ll receive Quimbee Legal Ethics Outline (a
The issue for the Supreme Court in Dolan v. City of Tigard was whether the conditions the city placed on Dolan’s permit constituted an uncompensated taking of property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Bakke was a landmark case that effectively ended the use of racial quota systems for affirmative-action purposes. However, some 25 years later, the Court upheld a law-school admissions policy that considered race as merely one factor among many.
In the case of Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the United States Supreme Court considered whether state laws prohibiting marriages on the basis of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment.