{
  "id": 243451,
  "name": "Janet ISBELL v. MARY KAY COSMETICS a/k/a Mary Kay, Inc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Isbell v. Mary Kay Cosmetics",
  "decision_date": "1999-09-23",
  "docket_number": "98-1099",
  "first_page": "580",
  "last_page": "581",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "338 Ark. 580"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "999 S.W.2d 673"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "338 Ark. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        243586
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/338/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 4-72-208",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 115,
    "char_count": 1117,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.736,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.00952912698771241
    },
    "sha256": "db38414d5bc3bbbf08d36961ddd44d807235b981fdebd6d1122da74d701d06ea",
    "simhash": "1:9183df263e5d5d6c",
    "word_count": 182
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:43:54.470477+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Janet ISBELL v. MARY KAY COSMETICS a/k/a Mary Kay, Inc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert L. Brown, Justice.\nAppellant Janet Isbell appeals an order of the trial court granting her attorney\u2019s fees and costs under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 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\u2019s 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\u2019s petition for attorney\u2019s fees and costs under the act is moot. This appeal is likewise dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert L. Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "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."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Janet ISBELL v. MARY KAY COSMETICS a/k/a Mary Kay, Inc.\n98-1099\n999 S.W.2d 673\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 23, 1999\nStephens Law Firm, by: K. Gregory Stephens and Janis C. Speed, for appellant/cross-appellee.\nWright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP, by: Roger D. Rowe, Nancy Bellhouse May, and Troy A. Price, for appellee/cross-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0580-01",
  "first_page_order": 610,
  "last_page_order": 611
}