Janet Isbell v. Mary Kay Cosmetics a/k/a Mary Kay, Inc.

Annotate this Case
98-1099

Janet ISBELL v. MARY KAY COSMETICS

a/k/a Mary Kay, Inc.

98-1099 ___ S.W.2d ___

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered September 23, 1999

Appeal & error -- petition for attorney's fees & costs moot -- appeal dismissed. -- Where, in a related opinion, the supreme court reversed the trial court's order and dismissed appellant's case, appellant's petition for attorney's fees and costs was moot; therefore, the court also dismissed this appeal.

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; John Ward, Judge; dismissed.

Stephens Law Firm, by: K. Gregory Stephens and Janis C. Speed, for appellant/cross-appellee.

Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP, by: Roger D. Rowe, Nancy Bellhouse May, and Troy A. Price, for appellee/cross-appellant.

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. ยง 4-72-208(b) (Repl. 1996). She contends that the trial court abused its discretion in that the fees and costs awarded were toosmall. In a related opinion handed down today in Mary Kay, Inc. v. Janet Isbell, Case No. 98-489, 338 Ark. ___, ___ S.W.2d ___ (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.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.