I'm beginning to understand to source of nicmarlo's confusion: he thinks that the act of making an argument (pleading, whatever) elevates the argument to the status of "case law." He neglects to consider that there is bad case law, unapplicable case law, and good case law.
Basically, what that means anyone can assert "Kelo allows this," much like anyone can assert (using whatever case law one chooses) the Moon is made of green cheese. A decent attorney would argue that "in Kelo, the Court uses this (or these) method(s) to determine" whether the Moon is in fact made of cheese.
That doesn't prevent even an only barely competent appellate attorney from arguing even if the Moon is made of green cheese the Supreme Court in the cited opinion took no position as to whether it is, and in dicta clearly indicates that the issue is unsettled and left to the lower courts to decide.
So basically, in the range from bad to good "case" law, Kelo falls squarely under "depends." Meaning, of course, in my opinion Kelo is a crappy decision. We'll have to wait and see if the District Court in Western Seafood finds Kelo controlling in some fashion or not.