In the case of Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of International Union of Operating Engineers, 2013, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a district court's decision on merits and attorney’s fees is final and appealable even if the award or denial of contractual attorney’s fees remains pending. The dispute arose when Ray Haluch Gravel Company failed to make required contributions to various employee benefit funds under collective bargaining agreements with a union representing its employees. After winning in District Court, Central Pension Fund sought additional damages for unpaid contributions as well as litigation costs including attorney's fees which were denied by the lower court but granted upon appeal at First Circuit Court level citing it had jurisdiction over both matters since they were intertwined issues. However, this was overturned by Supreme Court stating that appeals courts do not have jurisdiction until all decisions are made at trial level thus affirming separation between merits judgment and attorneys' fee determination.

In the dissenting opinion for Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of International Union of Operating Engineers, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with precedent and could lead to inefficiencies in litigation. She contended that attorney’s fees should be considered part of a merits judgment because they are directly tied to a plaintiff’s success on their claims, not separate or collateral issues as suggested by the majority ruling. Therefore, she believed an appeal clock should not start until decisions on both damages and attorney's fees have been made final by lower courts. This would prevent piecemeal appeals which can cause delays and increase costs in legal proceedings.