People v. Ziltz

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that section 11--501.2(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code did not set out a mandatory presumption because the State was still required to prove a blood-alcohol concentration equal to or greater than the statutory limit
• holding that section 11— 501.2(a)(1) of the Vehicle Code did not set out a mandatory presumption because the State was still required to prove a blood-alcohol concentration equal to or greater than the statutory limit
• finding that statute imposing strict liability on drivers found to be impaired by an alcohol concentrate of 0.10% or above did not violate the United States Constitution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).