DUKART ON BEHALF OF v. HOLMES (2025)

[¶1] Terica Holmes appeals from a disorderly conduct restraining order. Holmes challenges the order on multiple grounds, including alleged constitutional violations. We affirm.

[¶2] Holmes's appellate brief is devoid of any statement of facts or citations to the record. Further, her arguments are conclusory and lack sufficient factual or legal analysis. While Holmes cites three United States Supreme Court cases, she does not elucidate on their applicability. Holmes's brief does not meet the minimum requirements in N.D.R.App.P. 28. See State v. Noack, 2007 ND 82, ¶ 9, 732 N.W.2d 389 (outlining the “absolutely imperative” requirements of N.D.R.App.P. 28). Because Holmes's brief is inadequate, we decline to delve into the record to analyze for constitutional issues. See Montana-Dakota Utils. Co. v. Behm, 2019 ND 139, ¶ 19, 927 N.W.2d 865 (“We do not address inadequately briefed issues.”); Horst v. Horst, 2019 ND 93, ¶ 2, 925 N.W.2d 428 (declining to consider constitutional claims as arguments were inadequately articulated, supported, and briefed); see also Buchholz v. Barnes Cnty. Water Bd., 2008 ND 158, ¶ 16, 755 N.W.2d 472 (“Judges, whether trial or appellate, are not ferrets, obligated to engage in unassisted searches of the record for evidence to support a litigant's position.”).

[¶3] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(8).

Per Curiam.

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte Douglas A. Bahr