How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Idaho

Step-by-step

Below is a practical walkthrough for running Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Idaho (US-ID). This tool helps you evaluate how an Idaho offer-of-judgment posture may affect attorney’s fees and related outputs, using jurisdiction-aware rules.

1) Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer

1. Go to the primary tool page: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer.
2. If the tool asks you to select a jurisdiction, choose Idaho (US-ID).

2) Confirm Idaho’s fee framework the analyzer will use

For Idaho, the analyzer relies on the statutory fee rule in:

• Idaho Code § 12-120 (attorney’s fees to prevailing party in “any civil action” with the statutory predicate)

The statute directs:

• In any civil action, the court shall award, as part of the judgment, a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party (subject to the statutory conditions the tool models).

Source: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title12/T12CH120/SECT12-120/

Default/rule note (important): Your content brief indicates no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. That means the analyzer should treat Idaho Code § 12-120 as the general/default starting point for the period/rule in this workflow. In other words, unless the tool’s Idaho rule-set includes additional carveouts for your selected claim type (and this brief does not provide one), § 12-120 is the baseline.

3) Enter the offer details

While the exact input fields can vary slightly by interface update, the analyzer typically focuses on offer timing and the offer amount versus the eventual result.

Use the tool’s fields to enter, for example:

• Offer amount (the dollar amount offered)
• Offer date (the date the offer was served)
• Response/withdrawal details (if the UI provides them)
• Case outcome / final judgment figure (what the court awarded, or the figure you’re comparing against)

Input tip: If your UI includes “judgment amount” and “claimed damages,” prefer the final judgment (or the specific figure the tool expects for its comparison logic).

4) Enter attorney fee inputs (if the tool requests them)

Offer-of-judgment modeling can be sensitive to fee assumptions. If DocketMath asks for:

• Your attorney fee estimate (or hourly rate + hours)
• Opponent’s attorney fee estimate (optional, if provided)

Fill these values using your best documentation and most reasonable estimates. Even when the analyzer outputs a modeled range or a calculated baseline, accurate inputs make the output more useful for scenario comparison.

5) Review the jurisdiction-aware settings

Before running the calculation:

• Ensure the jurisdiction tag reads Idaho (US-ID).
• Confirm the rule set indicates Idaho Code § 12-120 as the governing fee baseline.

If the tool offers toggles for something like “use statutory fee rule” or “use jurisdiction default,” leave the default setting on for your first run, then adjust only if the tool explains how those toggles change the rule application.

6) Run the analyzer

Click Analyze / Calculate / the tool’s primary action button.

The analyzer will produce outputs such as:

• A comparison of the offer amount against the judgment (and any derived threshold logic the tool models)
• Estimated fee exposure or prevailing-party fee impact based on Idaho Code § 12-120
• Notes or modeled takeaways about how the offer posture may affect fee outcomes under the prevailing-party framework

Because § 12-120 is framed broadly—“In any civil action”—the analyzer’s default behavior generally treats it as applicable unless the tool’s Idaho logic selects a narrower rule and your rule-set supports that distinction.

7) Adjust inputs and compare scenarios

A major advantage of using DocketMath here is scenario testing. Try updating one variable at a time:

• Change offer amount (e.g., increase by 10% or move it above/below the tool’s comparison point)
• Change offer date (only if you have stronger timeline facts)
• Update the judgment amount (if you’re comparing alternative settlement/verdict figures)

Simple comparison checklist:

8) Capture results for your recordkeeping

Once you get outputs you understand:

• Save or copy the results summary (if the tool provides an export/share option).
• Record the assumptions the tool displays (so you can reproduce results later when you correct numbers).

Common pitfalls

Offer-of-judgment modeling is sensitive to the exact inputs you provide. These are the mistakes that most often cause “surprising” results when running DocketMath’s analyzer for Idaho:

• missing a required input
• using a stale rate or rule
• ignoring calendar or holiday adjustments
• skipping documentation of assumptions

Misaligned “offer amount” vs. “judgment amount”

If your tool expects a final judgment figure, but you enter something else, the modeled fee impact may shift significantly, for example if you use:

• a demand amount,
• the other side’s settlement offer,
• or a partial award.

Missing or incorrect dates

Even if the fee framework is driven by Idaho Code § 12-120, the analyzer may still compare timeline elements. Double-check:

• offer date format (and whether it’s interpreted correctly)
• whether you entered the date of service versus a different date from your documents

Assuming claim-type sub-rules exist when the rule-set is general

Your brief explicitly notes: no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. That means you should not expect the analyzer to apply a narrower carveout unless the tool’s interface/rule-set actually shows it for your selected claim type.

If you believe a special sub-rule should apply in your situation, verify the tool’s Idaho settings show such a sub-rule. If you don’t see one, treat § 12-120 as the general/default starting point.

Not updating fee inputs consistently

If you enter hourly rates and hours, keep assumptions consistent with what you’re modeling.

For instance, mixing:

• fees “incurred through trial” with
• a judgment outcome that reflects an “early resolution”

can make the output feel inaccurate even if the tool is behaving as designed.

Running only one scenario

One run won’t tell you how sensitive the result is to your assumptions. Try at least two:

• a baseline scenario using your best estimates
• a second scenario with a small change (for example, ±10% offer amount)

This helps distinguish whether changes come from modeled fee logic or from input variability.

Try it

Start with a baseline run using Idaho (US-ID) and Idaho Code § 12-120 as the default fee framework.

Use this “first pass” checklist:

When results appear:

1. Look for how the analyzer compares the offer to the judgment (and any threshold it uses).
2. Review how the tool translates Idaho’s direction for fees under § 12-120 into the output.
3. Adjust one input (commonly offer amount) and rerun to see how the modeled fee effect changes.

Related reading

• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Alabama
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Arizona
• Offer of Judgment Analyzer Guide for Colorado