Myrick v. Holmes
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
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.” 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
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.