Isbell v. Mary Kay Cosmetics

Full title: Janet ISBELL v . MARY KAY COSMETICS a/k/a Mary Kay, Inc

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Sep 23, 1999

999 S.W.2d 673 (Ark. 1999)

999 S.W.2d 673

Opinion

98-1099

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. § 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, Case No. 98-489, 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.