I regard the Ankeny decision as utter crap, and I likewise fail to see how a case in one state court has any bearing on a different case in another state's court. Each state makes up and administrates it's OWN laws, not the laws of other states.
As to the birth certificate, if you look at my posts here on FR from before the hearing, I predicted that Obama would not be found qualified unless he submitted a certified (raised seal) COLB or birth certificate. (The only time, IIRC, that I made a prediction on an eligibility thread which proved wrong!) What saved Obama was that the plaintiffs offered the internet image and stipulated that it was correct.
Two of them did. The third stipulated that it was fake. How the Judge applied the facts of the first two cases to the third is a question of legal malfeasance that I have yet to see addressed by anyone on the "Obama is legitimate" side of this issue.
The issue was not one of Georgia law; it is a question of federal constitutional law. An Indiana decision on a federal issue is not binding precedent in a Georgia court, but it is certainly persuausive precedent that a judge is entitled to consider.
I did address this above. This was not a conventional lawsuit, in which a judge could rule that the defendant owes money to plaintiff A but not to plaintiff B; it was an administrative hearing for the purposes of making a recommendation to the Secretatry of State, who has to decide whether Obama is on the ballot or not. Kemp could hardly rule that when Farrar goes to vote, Obama will not be on his ballot, but when the other plaintiffs vote, Obama will be on the ballot. Malihi was entitled to consider all of the evidence anyone put before him when he made his recommendation to Kemp, and Kemp was entitled to consider Malihi's recommendation when he made his decision.
And you heard it here first: the Georgia courts will uphold Kemp's decision, and SCOTUS will not review the case. You can take that to the bank.