{"id":1254,"date":"2019-03-22T10:17:20","date_gmt":"2019-03-22T15:17:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1254"},"modified":"2019-03-22T10:17:20","modified_gmt":"2019-03-22T15:17:20","slug":"braylock-v-city-of-dayton-hennepin-dist-ct-2018","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/03\/22\/braylock-v-city-of-dayton-hennepin-dist-ct-2018\/","title":{"rendered":"Braylock v. City of Dayton (Hennepin Dist. Ct. 2018)."},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">Braylock v. City of Dayton, No. 27- CV-18\u2013199 (Hennepin Dist. Ct. 2018)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Plaintiffs brought suit challenging application of local residential banishment law that prevented them from residing in certain areas.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding:\u00a0<\/strong> Trial court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, finding that local ordinances were preempted by state law under both conflict and field preemption theories.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2019\/03\/Trial-Court-Decision.pdf\">Trial Court Decision<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.startribune.com\/minnesota-sex-offenders-challenge-a-city-s-ban\/470718623\/\">Minnesota sex offenders challenge a city&#8217;s ban<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hennepin County trial court finding that city&#8217;s residential banishment laws were unconstitutional under theories of conflict and field preemption<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/03\/22\/braylock-v-city-of-dayton-hennepin-dist-ct-2018\/\" class=\"more-link\">Braylock v. City of Dayton (Hennepin Dist. Ct. 2018).<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":836,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[149,105],"class_list":{"0":"post-1254","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-residency-cases","7":"tag-minnesota","8":"tag-preemption","9":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1254","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/836"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1254"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1254\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1254"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1254"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1254"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}