Myrick v. Holmes
This text of 2025 ND 225 (Myrick v. Holmes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
2025 ND 225
Kayla Myrick; Kayla Myrick on behalf of LM and LM, Petitioners v. Terica Holmes, Respondent and Appellant
No. 20250199
Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Dann E. Greenwood, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Terica Holmes, Dickinson, ND, respondent and appellant; submitted on brief. Myrick v. Holmes No. 20250199
[¶1] Terica Holmes appeals from a disorderly conduct restraining order. She argues the restraining order violates her constitutional rights because it is “retaliatory and malicious.” Holmes’s brief does not contain a statement of facts, specify a standard of review, or provide citations to the record showing issues were preserved for review. See N.D.R.App.P. 28(b) (providing the minimum requirements for an appellant’s brief). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8) because Holmes’s brief does not meet the minimum requirements.
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 ND 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myrick-v-holmes-nd-2025.