Few of these rulings "back up" Obama on being eligible. A couple of them just include dicta saying they aren't willing to tackle the issue or they cite the errant Ankeny v. Daniels decision ... and Obama already had a chance to cite these rulings in the Kansas Ballot Challenge, but he presented no actual caselaw to back the citations up, PLUS he cited a 14th amendment argument through a citation of Wong Kim Ark that was shown to be contradicted in Wong Kim Ark. He has nothing and these cases are not compelling, otherwsie the Kansas Ballot Challenge would have been immediately denied. It was not.
Every one of the quotations from those ten lawsuits is from the actual ruling. They are part of the holding of the court and they are not not dicta.
Which Kansas ballot challenge are you referring to? I was under the impression that the prospective plaintiff (Joe Montgomery) in the Kansas action withdrew his challenge.
Are you talking about a different ballot challenge in Kansas?