Yes. it does exist.... There is more than adequate case law but no case has been adjudicated that looks like the case that Trump has been trumpeting..
The best explanation I have seen of Cruzes’ eligibility is in the congressional record of 1795, if I recall correctly.
Some legal scholars claim it was changed 4 or 5 years later, and there was a rewrite to a degree, but that portion relating to Cruz was not changed, as evidenced in subsequent law written over 100 years later. Since that time, the general understanding is that Ted Cruz falls under this interpretation of the natural born term as meant by the Convention.
Your reference to the 1795 case law is not any kind of applicable legal authority. In the first place Congress, which exists under Article I, has no power to define the intent of the Framers when they chose the Article II language of the presidential eligibility clause. In the second place the 1795 law passed by Congress in fact removed the word "natural" from the phrase "natural born citizen" as contained in the 1790 law and did so because of comments at the time that the 1790 law was an improper attempt to amend the Constitution without going through the required procedures.
Nor is there any law written more than a hundred years later that can define the meaning of the phrase in Article II concerning the presidential eligibility requirement.
In addition there was no rewrite 4 or 5 years after the 1795 act that purported to define the article II presidential eligibility clause and no evidence that anyone at the time thought that they could, as members or Congress, define the phrase in Article II or intended to do so. If there were any evidence from the notes of the Constitutional Convention or comments upon it such as in the Federalist Papers, you could cite it, but you cannot because it does not exist.
Quite frankly, and with all due respect, I do not think you post out any actual research or knowledge and could not cite any actual authority to support what you say.