Isbell v. Mary Kay Cosmetics

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Isbell v. Mary Kay Cosmetics

999 S.W.2d 673, 338 Ark. 580, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 451

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedSeptember 23, 1999

Docket98-1099

StatusPublished

This text of 999 S.W.2d 673 (Isbell v. Mary Kay Cosmetics) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Isbell v. Mary Kay Cosmetics, 999 S.W.2d 673, 338 Ark. 580, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 451 (Ark. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Robert L. Brown, Justice.

Appellant Janet Isbell appeals an order of the trial court granting her attorney’s fees and costs under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act. See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-72-208(b) (Repl. 1996). She contends that the trial court abused its discretion in that the fees and costs awarded were too small. In a related opinion handed down today in Mary Kay, Inc. v. Janet Isbell, 338 Ark. 556, 999 S.W.2d 669 (1999), this court reversed the trial court’s order and held that Janet Isbell was not covered by the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act. We dismissed her case. As a consequence of our decision in Case 98-489, Ms. Isbell’s petition for attorney’s fees and costs under the act is moot. This appeal is likewise dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Robert L. Brown, Justice.

Appellant Janet Isbell appeals an order of the trial court granting her attorney’s fees and costs under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act. See Ark. Code Ann. § 4-72-208(b) (Repl. 1996). She contends that the trial court abused its discretion in that the fees and costs awarded were too small. In a related opinion handed down today in Mary Kay, Inc. v. Janet Isbell, 338 Ark. 556, 999 S.W.2d 669 (1999), this court reversed the trial court’s order and held that Janet Isbell was not covered by the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act. We dismissed her case. As a consequence of our decision in Case 98-489, Ms. Isbell’s petition for attorney’s fees and costs under the act is moot. This appeal is likewise dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

999 S.W.2d 673, 338 Ark. 580, 1999 Ark. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isbell-v-mary-kay-cosmetics-ark-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack