Wright v. Holmes
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
Per Curiam. [¶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
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.