In Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., the U.S Supreme Court addressed whether a decision on the merits of a case that leaves unresolved an application for attorney's fees is final and appealable under 28 U.S.C §1291. The plaintiff, Peter Budinich, sued his former employer, Becton Dickinson & Co., alleging wrongful discharge and won at trial but was awarded less than he sought. Both parties appealed this judgment while still awaiting resolution of Budinich’s claim for attorney’s fees. The question before the court was whether these appeals were premature because they had been filed before determination of the fee request. The Supreme Court held that a decision on the merits is final and appealable even though attorney's fees remain to be determined. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in his opinion that "a claim for attorney's fees is not part of the merits of an action." Therefore, it does not prevent judgment from being considered 'final.' This ruling clarified when litigants can file appeals in federal cases where attorneys' fee awards are pending.

In the dissenting opinion for Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to categorize attorney fees as a separate issue from merits of a case was incorrect. He believed that this classification could lead to unnecessary confusion and delay in litigation proceedings, particularly when it comes to determining whether an appeal is timely or not. According to him, attorney fees are inherently tied up with the substance of a lawsuit and should be treated as such rather than being considered separately after judgment has been rendered on other issues in the case. Therefore, he disagreed with the Court’s ruling which held that decisions on attorney's fees do not prevent judgement on merits from becoming final even if they remain unresolved.