“The presumption may be overcome when there is reason to think some other explanation for the state court's decision is more likely,” id. at 785, a showing that Shelton has not attempted to make here.Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Dist. Court of Appeal, 5th Dist., 434 So.2d 310 (Fla.1983).Shelton, 802 F.Supp.2d at 1297 (citing Dep't of Legal Affairs, 434 So.2d at 311).

We start by emphasizing a well-established rule of jurisprudence—an unelaborated per curiam affirmance has no precedential value in any other case. See Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Dist. Court of Appeal, 5th Dist., 434 So. 2d 310, 313 (Fla. 1983) ("We reiterate that [a per curiam] decision is not a precedent for a principle of law and should not be relied upon for anything other than res judicata."); Berek v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 396 So. 2d 756, 759 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) ("We do not regard a per curiam affirmance without opinion as having precedential significance for other cases, notwithstanding that such an affirmance may establish the law of the particular case."); Goldberg v. Graser, 365 So. 2d 770, 773 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) ("A per curiam affirmance without opinion does not bind the appellate court in another case to accept the conclusion of law on which the decision of the lower court was based."); Mobil Chem. Co., a Div. of Mobil Corp. v. Hawkins, 440 So. 2d 378, 383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (holding a per curiam affirmance without written opinion has no precedential value, even in the deciding court).

We start by emphasizing a well-established rule of jurisprudence-an unelaborated per curiam affirmance has no precedential value in any other case. See Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Dist. Court of Appeal, 5th Dist., 434 So.2d 310, 313 (Fla. 1983) ("We reiterate that [a per curiam] decision is not a precedent for a principle of law and should not be relied upon for anything other than res judicata."); Berek v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 396 So.2d 756, 759 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)

State-law procedural principles in Florida provide that a per curiam affirmance has no precedential value and is not an adjudication on the merits. Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Dist. Court of Appeal, 5th Dist., 434 So.2d 310, 311 (Fla.1983). As noted in the procedural history in section I(B), supra, Florida's Fifth District Court of Appeal issued decisions affirming the rulings of the trial court without opinion and without a merits-based analysis of the federal constitutional claims, and thus its per curiam affirmances do not constitute an adjudication of Petitioner's facial challenge to the constitutionality of Fla. Stat. § 893.13 on the merits.

AIIC's motion exemplifies the wisdom of the rule that such per curiam affirmed decisions without a written opinion have no precedential value and should only be relied upon to establish res judicata. Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, 5th Dist., 434 So. 2d 310, 313 (Fla. 1983) ("We reiterate that such a decision is not a precedent for a principle of law and should not be relied upon for anything other than res judicata."); Munnerlyn v. Wingster, 825 So. 2d 481, 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that a party's reliance on a per curiam affirmance with a dissenting opinion even from its own court was "misplaced," since a dissenting opinion has no precedential value); Robinson v. State, Dep't of HRS ex rel. Robinson, 473 So. 2d 228, 229 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ("We do not need to distinguish Thompson v. Lancaster, 458 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), a per curiam affirmance without opinion. It is not precedential authority, because the reasons for the affirmance cannot be determined."); St. Fort ex rel. St. Fort v. Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, 902 So. 2d 244, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); State v. Swartz, 734 So. 2d 448, 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Terry v. State, 467 So. 2d 761, 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) ("We caution the parties and trial courts not to rely on decis

AIIC’s motion exemplifies the wisdom of the rule that such per curiam affirmed decisions without a written opinion have no precedential value and should only be relied upon to establish res judicata. Dep’t of Legal Affairs v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, 5th Dist., 434 So. 2d 310, 313 (Fla. 1983) ("We reiterate that such a decision is not a precedent for a principle of law and should not be relied upon for anything other than res judicata."); Munnerlyn v. Wingster, 825 So. 2d 481, 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that a party’s reliance on a per curiam affirmance with a dissenting opinion even from its own court was "misplaced," since a dissenting opinion has no precedential value); Robinson v. State,Dep’t of HRS ex rel. Robinson, 473 So. 2d 228, 229 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) ("We do not need to distinguish Thompson v. Lancaster, 458 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), a per curiam affirmance without opinion. It is not precedential authority, because the reasons for the affirmance cannot be determined."); St. Fort ex rel. St. Fort v. Post, Buckley, Schuh& Jernigan, 902 So. 2d 244, 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) ; State v. Swartz, 734 So. 2d 448, 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ; Terry v. State, 467 So. 2d 761, 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) ("We caution the parties and trial courts not to rely on decisio

Id. at 448. See also Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, 5th Dist., 434 So.2d 310, 311 (Fla. 1983) ("The issue is whether a per curiam appellate court decision with no written opinion has any precedential value. We hold that it does not.").

The only issue discussed in Jefferson is the same one we consider in this en banc opinion. It is thus a reasonable inference of the bench and bar that we have sub silentio already adopted the Jefferson view. In Department of Legal Affairs v. District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 434 So.2d 310 (Fla. 1983), the court held that a per curiam decision without opinion has no precedential value, but we note the following passage from that opinion: The situation is slightly different in reference to calling a court's attention to one of its own unwritten decisions.

The entire record of the former case has not been made part of the record in the case on review. Since, however, an appeal was made to this court from the former judgment entered, we have taken judicial notice, as we are permitted, of the record in our files from the earlier appeal. See Department of Legal Affairs v. District Court of Appeal, 5th District, 434 So.2d 310, 313 (Fla. 1983). 1. The Court finds in favor of the Defendant [Hinnant] on its counter-claim and finds against . . . Frances M. Spottswood and in favor of the Defendant Barry Hinnant, Inc.

As we recently recognized in State of Florida, Commission on Ethics v. Sullivan, 430 So.2d 928, 932 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), if the same issues and parties are involved in two or more cases, a PCA becomes the law of the case, is res judicata, but is not stare decisis. Accord Department of Legal Affairs v. District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 434 So.2d 310, 313 (Fla., 1983) (". . . such a decision is not a precedent for a principle of law and should not be relied upon for anything other than res judicata."). Obviously, since there is no identity of parties in either the Cruz or Gilley cases, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable.