Wright v. Holmes
This text of 2025 ND 212 (Wright 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 212
Jessica Wright, and Jessica Wright on behalf of G.W., Petitioners and Appellees v. Terica Holmes, Respondent and Appellant
No. 20250179
Appeal from the District Court of Stark County, Southwest Judicial District, the Honorable Rhonda R. Ehlis, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Per Curiam.
Jared W. Gietzen, Dickinson, N.D., for petitioners and appellees; submitted on brief.
Terica Holmes, self-represented, Dickinson, N.D., respondent and appellant; submitted on brief. Wright v. Holmes No. 20250179
[¶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.” She also contends the restraining order rested on “untrue hearsay.” Holmes’s brief does not contain a statement of facts, specify a standard of review, or provide citations to the record showing the issues preserved for review. See N.D.R.App.P. 28(b) (setting forth minimum brief requirements). 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 212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-holmes-nd-2025.