The clips are up on CBS.
Couric definitely didn’t require that the candidates name cases. Getting the gist right would have worked in this context. Biden didn’t name the actual case, for example.
We just watched the latest Couric segment, so it was a good opportunity to ask my husband to name a case. He quit school at 17 to join the Navy, doesn’t read anything except the local newspaper, and pays no attention to politics. But he watches Cops, and he knew Miranda.
On one hand, as Bricker predicted, the question was about disagreement. And I think her failure to name another case with which she disagrees is a relatively minor sin. Though, obviously, most national politicians–and indeed most politically-active, college-educated Americans–would have several stock replies to this question.
On the other hand, as jsgoddess points out, the names weren’t required, so the question was a little easier in that respect.
Also, her concession of a right to privacy and subsequent statement that she “believe[s] that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that,” suggests a rather superficial understanding of the relevant issues.
By my lights, this part of the interview was far less damning than the others.
I don’t know if I accept that as a superficial understanding or a lack of understanding, but I think that’s a topic best served in GD.
I could only name Roe vs. Wade. I am not American.
Terry v Ohio
Mimms v Pennsylvania
Oh my that was painful. It was like watching George Costanza trying to bullshit his way through a job interview.
Well, I’ll step up and admit the only two I could think of were Roe v. Wade and Brown v. the Board of Education, and I couldn’t have remembered which board with a gun to my head.
I couldn’t even remember Bush v. Gore or Hamdi v. Rumsfeld … did I get those right?
Two cases I disagreed with? Hmm. No.
I’ve followed some, and been heart-broken at the decisions, and listened to every word Nina Tottenberg said, but I still can not remember the names.
But I’m not aiming for one heart beat away from the Presidency; if I were, I sure as hell would be giving serious thought to Supreme Court nominees and, therefore, pivotal cases.
Pardon me while I go look up the other cases mentioned here.
You mean Reference as to the Validity of the Regulations in Relation to Chemicals Enacted by Order in Council and of an Order of the Controller of Chemicals Made Pursuant Thereto, [1943] S.C.R. 1?
No. There’s no love there. 
Plessy v. Ferguson
Brown v. The Board of Education (of Topeka, KS)
That cannot have been beneficial for the state tourist board.
To start with- my original thoughts- reading the OP- was Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education…
The others I knew when I read them, but hadn’t thought about. Several- I remembered by name- but having been so long since I’d been in any sort of history class I had totally forgotten what their big deal was.
So I am spending the rest of the night reading up on big supreme court cases… and thank you all for making me be a better citizen 
Let me add two then:
Employment Division v. Smith
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Heh. A few years back, when the Virginia legislature decided not to decriminalize adultery, some jokers suggested that the state tourism motto be changed from “Virginia is for lovers” to “Virginia is for really good friends.”
but I’m chemicals! you’re chemicals! we’re all chemicals! we can’t ignore our basic chemical nature! and without chemistry, how can there be Loving, in Virginia or elsewhere? isn’t the question of the extent of federal jurisdiction over chemicals a matter of crucial importance??
okay, I’ll stop now.
Without reading any other answers:
Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas – School desegregation
Roe vs. Wade – Abortion rights