This appears to be incorrect to this admittedly non-lawyer.
There is no such precedent. Dicta doesn't set precedent. The opinion in Wong only declared plaintiff to be a citizen , not a natural born citizen, as the description of the case by the court clearly states. Confusing dicta conflating English natural born subject with citizen doesn't count as precedent.
An Indiana Appeals Court falsely interpreted dicta in Wong Kim Ark to mean that you can be a dual citizen at birth subject to a foreign power and still be an NBC, even if it is your your father that is foreign (we never passed the ERA).
In the Minor v. Happersett case SCOTUS specifically said it had not yet ruled on whether persons who didn't have two US citizen parents born on US soil could be NBC, and SCOTUS cited Minor in deciding Wong without refuting it.
Subsequently, SCOTUS has not ruled on any case on point with Obama’s eligibility, so there is no precedent for the Indiana court to cite. A case de nouveau for Obama would seem to be needed.
See D’Onofrio’s cashed blog page (including his his deletions of his amusing insults to SCOTUS, which may account for why he as taken down his blog):
And yes, of course, every court that doesn't do what the birthers want is doing something false. Obviously there is no honesty or professional competence outside birther circles. That's how paranoid conspiracy theories work. It just gets more and more obvious what they really are as more and more court rulings pile up.