Question: Which Supreme Court case went along with an existing state law to a greater degree, Enmund v. Florida or Gonzales v. Oregon?

Context paragraphs:
Hoffman v. Jones: Hoffman v. Jones, (Fla. 1973), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of Florida that was the first adoption of the comparative negligence rule in negligence law through judicial decision as opposed to adoption through statute.  In the wrongful death case of Hoffman v. Jones, attorney Sammy Cacciatore Jr. was instrumental in causing the Florida Supreme Court to adopt for the first time the comparative negligence rule in negligence law.William Harrison Jones Jr. was killed by a Pav-A-Way Corporation truck driven by Philip Francis Hoffman Jr.  It was the first case in the nation in which a state supreme court abandoned the almost-150-year-old doctrine of contributory negligence, which precluded an injured victim from recovery if the victim had contributed to the incident to any degree.  The Florida Supreme Court adopted the concept of “pure” comparative negligence, which allows a victim to be compensated for the percentage of harm caused by the at-fault person.  The decision of the court in Hoffman v. Jones has been cited in law school textbooks, and now the concept of comparative negligence is the prevailing doctrine.

State v. Limon: State v. Limon (280 Kan. 275, 122 P.3d 22) is a 2005 Kansas Supreme Court case in which a state law allowing for lesser punishment for statutory rape convictions if the partners were of different sexes than if they were of the same sex was found unconstitutional under both the federal and Kansas state constitutions.  It was among the first cases to cite the United States Supreme Court decision "Lawrence v. Texas" as precedent, months after the Virginia Supreme Court did similarly in "Martin v. Ziherl".

Gonzales v. Carhart: Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.  The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.  Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

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.

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.

Isabel González: Isabel González (May 2, 1882 – June 11, 1971) was a Puerto Rican activist who helped pave the way for Puerto Ricans to be given United States citizenship.  As a young unwed pregnant woman, González had her plans to find and marry the father of her unborn child derailed by the United States Treasury Department when she was excluded as an alien "likely to become a public charge" upon her arrival in New York City.  González challenged the Government of the United States in the groundbreaking case "Gonzales v. Williams" (192 U.S. 1 (1904)).  Officially the case was known as "Isabella Gonzales, Appellant, v. William Williams, United States Commissioner of Immigration at the Port of New York" No. 225, argued December 4, 7, 1903, and decided January 4, 1904.  Her case was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, filed February 27, 1903, after also having her Writ of Habeas Corpus (HC.  1-187) dismissed.  Her Supreme Court case is the first time that the Court confronted the citizenship status of inhabitants of territories acquired by the United States.  González actively pursued the cause of U.S. citizenship for all Puerto Ricans by writing letters published in "The New York Times".

Gonzales v. Oregon: Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) , was a decision of the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the US Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, often referred to as medical aid in dying.  It was the first major case heard under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Foster v. Chatman: Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of "res judicata" does not preclude a "Batson" challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged.  The Court held the state courts' "Batson" analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under "Ake v. Oklahoma".

Pennsylvania v. Nelson: Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) , was a United States Supreme Court case that established a precedent for the preemption of United States Federal law over State laws.  The case was argued November 15–16, 1955 and the decision was handed down April 2, 1956.  The State of Pennsylvania tried to convict a man of sedition under a state law, but a Federal law existed on the same subject.  The Court ruled that the Federal law, the Smith Act, overruled the state law, the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, even though the state law was created before the federal law.  Nelson, who was convicted under the state law, was therefore mistried.

V.L. v. E.L.: V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016) , is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples.  In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children.  However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up.  E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights.  On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law.  The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama.  V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children.  On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.

Supporting paragraphs: Enmund v. Florida Gonzales v. Oregon
Answer: Gonzales v. Oregon