I've got the ruling now. The court is indeed opening the case back up, but not necessarily supporting the union's claims. Here's the key passage: "Our holding should not be read as in any way expressing a view on the merits
of the Association’s Rule 60(b) motion. “Rule 60(b) authorizes relief in only the
most exceptional of cases,” In re Guidant Corp. Implantable Defibrillators Prods.
Liab. Litig., 496 F.3d 863, 866 (8th Cir. 2007) (quoting Noah v. Bond Cold Storage,
408 F.3d 1043, 1045 (8th Cir. 2005)), and the Association bears a heavy burden in
attempting to convince the district court that the Dismissal was fraudulently procured.
We hold only that the Association should be given the opportunity to meet this