Why do those not apply. My understanding is that in those cases Trump tried to use the power of the government to seize his neighbors property. So, I see no reason that they do not apply. Also, Trump came out in support of Kelo when it was decided and I have never heard anything about him reversing his support for that decision.
The Atlantic City case did not start with Trump having the city act as his bulldog. Especially in the Coking case, Trump even offered the woman as high as $1 million before the city butted in with eminent domain proceedings—and Coking won against the city, with a judge throwing out the case against her.
I’m sure that some people are of course smugly satisfied with the failure of Trump’s casino notwithstanding; Coking ended up moving to a retirement home in Florida, leaving her son to try to sell the dilapidated rooming house (she bought it in 1961 for $20K, about $160K in 2015 dollars), which ended up being bought by Carl Icahn for a little over half a million (he’s the holder of Trump’s former AC properties) and being razed by Icahn.
Either way, you have a valid question to pose to Trump as to how he views Kelo today (remember his last stated opinion was ten years ago), and what he would do about it if he did actually attain the presidency. The plaintiffs in Kelo did make out better financially due to governor Rell’s intervention, and the land in question was never redeveloped.