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

full_context: Document 1: 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".
Document 2: Atkins v. Virginia: Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but states can define who has intellectual disability. Twelve years later in "Hall v. Florida" the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the discretion under which U.S. states can designate an individual convicted of murder as too intellectually incapacitated to be executed.
Document 3: 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.
Document 4: 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.
Document 5: 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".
Document 6: Franklin v. State: Franklin v. State, (Fla. 1971), was a case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down Florida's sodomy law as being "unconstitutional for vagueness and uncertainty in its language, violating constitutional due process to the defendants." The court retained the state's prohibition on sodomy by ruling that anal and oral sex could still be prosecuted under the lesser charge of "unnatural and lascivious" conduct, thus reducing the crime from a felony to a misdemeanor.
Document 7: 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.
Document 8: 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.
Document 9: R v Latimer: R v Latimer [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in the controversial case of Robert Latimer, a Saskatchewan farmer convicted of murdering his disabled daughter Tracy Latimer. The case had sparked an intense national debate as to the ethics of what was claimed as a mercy killing. In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the crime could not be justified through the defence of necessity, and found that, despite the special circumstances of the case, the lengthy prison sentence given to Latimer was not cruel and unusual and therefore not a breach of section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court also ruled that Latimer was not denied rights to jury nullification, as no such rights exist. The prison sentence was thus upheld, although the Court specifically noted that the federal government had the power to pardon him.
Document 10: Penry v. Lynaugh: Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) , sanctioned the death penalty for mentally retarded offenders because the Court determined executing the mentally retarded was not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment. However, because Texas law did not allow the jury to give adequate consideration as a mitigating factor to Johnny Paul Penry's intellectual disability at the sentencing phase of his murder trial, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Eventually, Penry was retried for capital murder, again sentenced to death, and again the Supreme Court ruled, in "Penry v. Johnson", 532 U.S. 782 (2001) , that the jury was not able to adequately consider Penry's intellectual disability as a mitigating factor at the sentencing phase of the trial. Ultimately, Penry was spared the death penalty because of the Supreme Court's ruling in "Atkins v. Virginia", 536 U.S. 304 (2002) , which, while not directly overruling the holding in ""Penry I"", did give considerable negative treatment to "Penry" on the basis that the Eighth Amendment allowed execution of the mentally retarded.
Document 11: 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.
Document 12: Dolan v. City of Tigard: Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) , more commonly Dolan v. Tigard, was a United States Supreme Court case. It was a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, and served to establish limits on the ability of cities and other government agencies, to use zoning and land-use regulations to compel property owners to make unrelated public improvements.
Document 13: 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.
Document 14: 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.
Document 15: Murder of Heather Strong: In February 2009, Heather Strong was kidnapped and murdered in Marion County, Florida. Maintaining her innocence, and complaining of coerced confession, Emilia Lily Carr was nevertheless found guilty in December 2010 and sentenced to death by lethal injection in February 2011. Carr was one of five women on death row in the state of Florida. On May 19, 2017, Emilia Carr was re-sentenced to life without parole. Heather Strong's husband, and Carr's co-accused, Joshua Fulgham was similarly convicted of first-degree murder and kidnapping in the death. At a separate trial, where he pled guilty, Joshua Fulgham received two consecutive sentences of life in prison.
ground_truth: yes