SCOTUS Answers Federal Appellate Procedural Question

A Law360 article today, High Court Says Fee Requests Don't Shift Appeal Deadlines, reports on Ray Haluch Gravel Company v. Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers:

The justices found that the fact that the bid for fees was based on a contract rather than a statute was not enough to distinguish the case from the court's 1988 decision in Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., which held that a decision on the merits is a "final decision" that can be appealed even if the award or amount of attorneys' fees for the litigation remains to be determined.

Or, in Justice Kennedy's own words:

Federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from "final decisions" of United States district courts. 28 U. S. C. §1291. In Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U. S. 196 (1988), this Court held that a decision on the merits is a "final decision" under §1291 even if the award or amount of attorney’s fees for the litigation remains to be determined. The issue in this case is whether a different result obtains if the unresolved claim for attorney’s fees is based on a contract rather than, or in addition to, a statute. The answer here, for purposes of §1291 and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is that the result is not different. Whether the claim for attorney’s fees is based on a statute, a contract, or both, the pendency of a ruling on an award for fees and costs does not prevent, as a general rule, the merits judgment from becoming final for purposes of appeal.