Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Schake v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. Severance Plan for Salaried Employees

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided April 2, 1992No. 91-3476Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMansmann, Circuit Judge

Because I believe that our precedent indicates that we do not have appellate jurisdiction over a district court’s unliquidated award of attorney fees, I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion addressing attorney fees. I concur with the remainder of the opinion.

A

I note first that the lack of finality regarding attorney fees does not preclude our jurisdiction over a final decision of the district court. For purposes of appeal, attorney fees are separate from the merits. See Colon v. Hart (In re Colon), 941 F.2d 242, 245 (3d Cir.1991); Confer v. Custom Eng’g Co., 952 F.2d…

2Cases cited7 opinions

St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railroad v. Southern Express Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1883
Delgrosso v. Spang & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
In Re ColonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991
In Re Grand Jury Matter. John F. Kennedy Memorial HospitalCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
Frankel v. Alan Wood Steel Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.