Question: Are both Enmund v. Florida and Kelo v. City of New London United States Supreme Court cases?

Context paragraphs:
Dana Berliner: Dana Berliner is Litigation Director at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm in Arlington, Virginia founded in 1991 by Chip Mellor and Clint Bolick.  She was co-lead counsel for Susette Kelo in the landmark United States Supreme Court case "Kelo v. City of New London".

Wesley W. Horton: Wesley W. Horton is a Connecticut appellate lawyer and partner of Horton, Shields & Knox, P.C.  In 2005 he represented the City of New London in Kelo v. New London before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Constitution Park (New Hampshire): Constitution Park was a 2005 proposal to pursue eminent domain against the Plainfield, New Hampshire vacation estate of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, in order to construct a park commemorating the US and New Hampshire Constitutions and providing an interpretive center and lodging for visitors.  It came in response to the Supreme Court decision in "Kelo v. City of New London".

Enmund v. Florida: Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) , is a United States Supreme Court case.  It was a 5–4 decision in which the United States Supreme Court applied its capital proportionality principle, to set aside the death penalty for the driver of a getaway car, in a robbery-murder of an elderly Florida couple.

Scott Bullock: Scott G. Bullock is an American lawyer who focuses on property rights issues such as eminent domain and civil forfeiture.  He is President and General Counsel at the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian public interest law firm.  He represented Susette Kelo in "Kelo v. City of New London", an eminent domain case decided by the Supreme Court in 2005.

Stephen Halbrook: Stephen P. Halbrook is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an author and lawyer known for his litigation on behalf of the National Rifle Association.  He has written extensively about the original meanings of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment (the latter as applied to Second Amendment rights).  He has argued and won three cases before the US Supreme Court: "Printz v. United States", "United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company", and "Castillo v. United States".  He has also written briefs in many other cases, including the Supreme Court cases "Small v. United States" (pertaining to the Gun Control Act of 1968) and "McDonald v. Chicago".  In "District of Columbia v. Heller", he wrote a brief on behalf of the majority of both houses of Congress.  More broadly, his decades of research on the Second Amendment contributed to the intellectual foundation of the "Heller" decision.  He has written many books and articles on the topic of gun control, some of which have been cited in Supreme Court opinions ("Heller", "McDonald", "Printz v. United States").  He has testified before congress on multiple occasions.  Halbrook’s most important scholarly contribution, however, was the book "That Every Man Be Armed", originally published in 1986.  The book was the most thorough analysis of the legal history and original intent of the Second Amendment.

Tison v. Arizona: Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court qualified the rule it set forth in "Enmund v. Florida" (1982).  Just as in "Enmund", the "Tison" Court applied the proportionality principle to conclude that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for a felony murderer who was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibited a reckless indifference to human life.

Berman v. Parker: Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  The Court voted 8–0, holding private property could be taken for a public "purpose" with just compensation.  This case laid the foundation for the Court's later important public use cases, "Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff", 467 U.S. 229 (1984) and "Kelo v. City of New London", 545 U.S. 469 (2005).  Critics of recent occurrences of eminent domain uses trace what they view as property rights violations to this case.

Kelo v. City of New London: Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.  In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

City of Norwood v. Horney: Norwood, Ohio v. Horney 110 Ohio St.3d 353 was a case brought before the Ohio Supreme Court in 2006.  The case came upon the heels of "Kelo v. City of New London", in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that commercial development justified the use of eminent domain.  "Kelo" had involved the United States Constitution, while the issue in "Norwood" was the specific limitations of the Ohio State Constitution.

Supporting paragraphs: Enmund v. Florida Kelo v. City of New London
Answer: yes