<p>Interpreting judicial decision-making in terms of a realistic optimization problem has been a longstanding challenge for economic theories of adjudication. This article develops a theory of value for a fundamental decision facing an appellate court: the choice of whether to follow, distinguish, or overrule precedent. Extending the framework of reason-based choice into a dynamic model of jurisprudence, the theory illustrates distinctive judicial phenomena such as the practice of ‘stealth overruling’, and also sheds new light on judicial minimalism, legal completeness, and the constraint of precedent.</p>