{
  "id": 51242,
  "name": "MARY KAY, INC. v. Janet ISBELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mary Kay, Inc. v. Isbell",
  "decision_date": "1999-02-11",
  "docket_number": "98-489; 98-1099",
  "first_page": "374",
  "last_page": "377",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "336 Ark. 374"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "986 S.W.2d 90"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "16 C.F.R. \u00a7 436.1",
      "category": "laws:admin_compilation",
      "reporter": "C.F.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3803,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3542847478752622
    },
    "sha256": "797051cec3f57e5d1c119c75cf9d6ffffb439cb1a3e1b8fca8d9038d3d4986cd",
    "simhash": "1:364437cb85ea2aa1",
    "word_count": 651
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:29:35.905877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARY KAY, INC. v. Janet ISBELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nJanet Isbell has filed a motion in the captioned cases tioned cases seeking permission to use one abstract for both cases, to correct printing mistakes in both abstracts, and to correct a nonconforming exhibit attached to her reply to Direct SeEing Association\u2019s amicus curice brief. Mary Kay Inc. filed a response to IsbeE\u2019s motion and a separate motion to strike. In its response to IsbeE\u2019s motion, Mary Kay Inc. has no objection to the use of one abstract for both cases. Nor does Mary Kay Inc. have any objection to IsbeE\u2019s request for permission to correct printing mistakes in her abstracts. However, Mary Kay Inc. moves to strike: (1) the exhibits attached to IsbeE\u2019s reply to Direct SeEing Association\u2019s amicus curice brief; (2) the portions of the volume of exhibits to abstract (Volume II) submitted by IsbeE in case no. 98-489 that should have been abstracted; and (3) the \u201cEditor\u2019s Notes\u201d in IsbeE\u2019s abstracts.\nBased upon the motions and responses filed by the parties, our review of IsbeE\u2019s abstract and brief (Volumes I through III) and IsbeE\u2019s reply to Direct SeEing Association\u2019s amicus curice brief, and the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, we make the foEowing rulings with regard to the motions filed by Mary Kay Inc. and IsbeE. We grant IsbeE\u2019s request that the parties be aEowed to use one abstract in both cases and that IsbeE be aEowed to correct any printing mistakes in both abstracts. We deny IsbeE\u2019s request that she be aEowed to correct a nonconforming exhibit attached to her reply to Direct SeEing Association\u2019s amicus curice brief. The nonconforming exhibit is a copy of 16 C.F.R. \u00a7 436.1 that does not faE within the category of documents which may be attached to an abstract under Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-2(a)(6). Furthermore, we grant Mary Kay Inc.\u2019s motion to strike Exhibits 1 and 2 to IsbeE\u2019s reply to Direct SeEing Association\u2019s amicus curice brief as neither document was an exhibit introduced at trial. We also grant Mary Kay Inc.\u2019s motion to strike Exhibit 3 to IsbeE\u2019s reply to Direct SeEing Association\u2019s amicus curice brief for the reasons previously stated in connection with our denial of IsbeE\u2019s request to correct nonconforming exhibit.\nWith regard to Mary Kay Inc.\u2019s motion to strike portions of the volume of exhibits to abstract (Volume II) submitted by IsbeE in case no. 98-489 that should have been abstracted, we grant that motion with regard to the foEowing exhibits in Volume II that were not abstracted and should have been abstracted under Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-2(a)(6): Nos. 1 through 4, 7 through 11, 14, 23 through 31, 34 through 35, 43 through 44, and 46 through 47. The remaining exhibits in Volume II were either abstracted (Nos. 5 through 6, 12 through 13, 15 through 16, and 45) or could not be abstracted in words, such as photographs, invoices and charts (Nos. 17 through 22, 32 through 33, 36 through 42, and 48). We, therefore, deny Mary Kay Inc.\u2019s motion to strike with regard to those remaining exhibits in Volume II. Finally, we grant Mary Kay Inc.\u2019s motion to strike the \u201cEditor\u2019s notes\u201d in Isbell\u2019s abstracts, because such notes do not comply with the requirement in Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-2(a)(6) that the abstract be an impartial condensation, without comment or emphasis. Examples of such \u201cEditor\u2019s notes\u201d appear in Volume I of Isbell\u2019s abstract and brief filed in case no. 98-489 at pages i-ii, 29, 33, 38-39, 41-43, 48-49, 51-52, 59, and 180.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: Roger D. Rowe, Nancy Bel-Ihouse May, and Troy A. Price, for appellant.",
      "Stephens Law Firm, by: K. Gregory Stephens and Janis C. Speed, for appellee.",
      "Barrett & Deacon P.A., by: Price Marshall, for amicus curice."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARY KAY, INC. v. Janet ISBELL\n98-489\n98-1099\n986 S.W.2d 90\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 11, 1999\nWright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: Roger D. Rowe, Nancy Bel-Ihouse May, and Troy A. Price, for appellant.\nStephens Law Firm, by: K. Gregory Stephens and Janis C. Speed, for appellee.\nBarrett & Deacon P.A., by: Price Marshall, for amicus curice."
  },
  "file_name": "0374-01",
  "first_page_order": 400,
  "last_page_order": 403
}