This article proposes a typology of judicial opinions in general with the goal of clarifying the law unraveled through jurisprudence, taking as a case study the Brazilian Supreme Court. According to the proposed classification, judicial opinions might be true precedents, managerial precedents, and application decisions. True precedents establish rules that do not restrict the Court’s own jurisdiction. On the other hand, managerial precedents are those opinions that establish new restrictions upon the Court’s own jurisdiction. As we show, managerial precedents are often not clear regarding positive law, and its high frequency might reduce the visibility of true precedents. Finally, application decisions, by their turn, are limited to applying a previously existing legal source (including, but not restricted to, true precedents). Data from the Brazilian Supreme Court suggests the viability of the distinction and its practical and theoretical importance, especially for quantitative inquiries, as an experiment conducted with decision trees reveals that citations received are highly informative to distinguish between true precedents and managerial precedents.