Our research expands on our previously published value judgment formalism, which models legal argumentation with values in a defeasible reasoning environment. The representation of domain situations is enhanced by introducing event progressions similar to actions in general AI planning. Using event progressions, situations can be assessed as to what facts they contain as well as what facts may ensue with some likelihood, thereby opening up a situation space. Purposive legal argumentation can be modeled using propositions and rules controlling the likelihoods of value-laden consequences. We extend the formalism to cover event progressions and illustrates the functionality using an example based on the seminal Young v. Hitchens case.