I’m guessing, but I suspect that each of these court cases takes the form of a plaintiff asking the court to grant an injunction restraining the Secretary of State (or whowever) from placing a particular proposal on the ballot paper. The court either grants that injunction or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, the court may issue an opinion saying why it is refusing to grant the injunction sought, but I doubt very much if it also makes an order directing the Secretary of State to include the proposal on the ballot paper. Nobody before the court would normally be looking for such an order.
The upshot of all this is that we have three cases in which a injunction was sought. In two cases the injunction was granted, but in the other I suspect that no order was made. So both the orders granted are to the same effect and the Secretary of State will (presumably) obey them, unless he can get them reversed or overturned on appeal. The opinion that the court gave in the case where the order was not granted may or may not be relevant to the grounds on which the orders were granted, and the Secretary of State may rely on it in his appeals against the orders granted. But it is probably just an opinion, not an order, and the Secretary of State can’t rely on it to ignore the orders which have been granted.