No court has ruled Obama to be ineligible on the basis of the holding in Minor (or any other precedential ruling).
As the judge in Arizona said in Allen v Obama: “Contrary to plaintiff’s claims, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”
Passing time has shown/demonstrated that the Courts and Congress have not given squat to Obama’s eligibility to any other past court decisions. I wonder why.
Sorry, but this is an argument based on circular logic and doesn't mean that these courts were not in error. A lot of courts haven't heard the Minor argument and I'm pretty sure most haven't heard the Luria argument which shows that the Supreme Court recognized Minor as THE precedent on Art. II presidential eligibility.
As the judge in Arizona said in Allen v Obama: “Contrary to plaintiff’s claims, Minor v Happersett does not hold otherwise.”
Sorry, but wrong is still wrong no matter who said it. This judge doesn't give a legal basis for supporting his denial.