Cahill, 428 F.3d 536, 539 (5th Cir.2005). 7 . In re Cortez, 457 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir.2006) (quoting In re Chunn, 106 F.3d 1239, 1241 (5th Cir.1997)). 8 . Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 . Id. 10 . Id. 11 . Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 . In re Pro-Snax Distribs., Inc., 157 F.3d 414, 420 (5th Cir.1998) (citation omitted). 13 . Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 202-03, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988). 14 . In re Aldus Mktg. Ass'n, 46 F.3d 67, 1995 WL 29344, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan.20, 1995) (unpublished) ("It is well settled that a decision on the merits is a ‘final decision’ for purposes of appealability, whether or not there remains for adjudication a request for attorney’s fees.”). 15 . See In re Johnson, 501 F.3d 1163, 1168 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); In re Rivera Torres, 432 F.3d 20, 22 (1st
holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction despite a remand to the bankruptcy court for more specific findings of fact and for further proceedings to apply the correct burden of proof holding that the court had appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of the case because only the collateral issue of attorneys fees remained to be decided on remand to the bankruptcy court holding that the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties entitled to attorneys fees for successfully securing a remand of the attorneys fees issue because the ruling was unrelated to the merits of the plaintiffs claim and the issue was not significant nor a benefit the plaintiffs sought in bringing their action holding that appellate court should reverse and remand issue of attorneys fees where damages are reduced on appeal in a manner that could affect the determination of reasonable and necessary attorneys fees