Whether the decision has been reversed or not is not the point. Nor is it the point that the decision may be challenged in subsequent appeals.
The point is that erroneous judicial dicta is not authoritative and can not be followed. Hence, the discussions mentioned are of no value to a lower court. Lower courts can not rely upon that portion of the discussion.
Subsequent Triers of Fact can use and have used both dicta and holdings as rationales for their decisions. Just because some people, including you, call statements in a ruling “erroneous” doesn’t make it so. Each Trier of Fact gets to decide for him or herself what is persuasive and what is not. It is the job of the attorney to convince a judge or panel of justices of the accuracy or inaccuracy of statements made in any earlier court ruling.