How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Kentucky

Step-by-step

Run this scenario in DocketMath using the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator.

Below is a practical walkthrough to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Kentucky (US-KY), using Kentucky’s offer timeline rule under Ky. R. Civ. P. 68.

Gentle reminder: This is a tool walkthrough to help you model timing and inputs. It’s not legal advice, and it can’t capture every procedural nuance in your case.

1) Open the Kentucky Offer Of Judgment Analyzer

1. Start at the primary tool entry point: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. Confirm you’re viewing the Kentucky jurisdiction setting (US-KY).

   • If the interface uses a dropdown, select US-KY so DocketMath applies the correct timeline logic for Ky. R. Civ. P. 68.

2) Enter the baseline “offer made” timing inputs

Ky. R. Civ. P. 68 includes a key default timing gate:

• “At any time more than thirty (30) days before the trial” a party may serve an offer that allows judgment to be taken against the offeror as specified in the offer.

From the provided statutory excerpt, there was no claim-type-specific sub-rule identified, so you should treat this as the general/default period for the analyzer’s purpose: more than 30 days before trial (not “30 days or more”).

In the analyzer, enter:

• Trial date (the “trial” reference date you intend to use for your matter)
• Offer service date (the date the offer was served, which starts the timeline calculation)

How outputs change: DocketMath uses these dates to determine whether the offer was served more than 30 days before trial—which is the core Kentucky “timing gate” for Ky. R. Civ. P. 68. If you change either date, the timeline gap changes and the timing status can flip.

3) Add the “offer amount” (and what the offer covers)

Next, enter the offer details the analyzer expects, typically:

• Offer amount (the dollar figure)
• What the offer is for (if the tool offers choices like money vs. another specified effect)

How outputs change: If DocketMath’s analyzer includes an “offer vs. outcome” comparison, then changing the offer amount will affect those calculations. If the tool is strictly focused on the timing gate in your input configuration, changing the amount may have little visible impact—still, entering it keeps the run consistent with an offer-based design.

4) Enter the “case outcome” comparator inputs (if supported)

Many offer calculators also ask for a result value so the tool can compare:

• your offer versus the judgment outcome (or closest equivalent)

Add outcome inputs such as:

• Final judgment amount (or the tool’s closest labeled equivalent)
• If the interface provides them, any needed supporting fields (for example, judgment date), but follow the tool’s labels rather than assumptions.

How outputs change: When you update the final judgment amount, any “offer acceptance vs. outcome” logic (if enabled by your inputs) will change because the tool is effectively checking how the result stacks up against the offer.

5) Review the output—prioritize the “timeline pass/fail” first

Before you focus on any offer-vs-outcome numbers, check the output section that answers the timing question:

• Was the offer served more than 30 days before trial under Ky. R. Civ. P. 68?

Then review additional sections (if your inputs enabled them), such as:

• A timeline summary (offer service date → trial date gap)
• A status indicator (e.g., timing gate satisfied vs. too late)
• Any offer-vs-outcome comparison results

6) Save or export your run (if available)

If the interface supports it:

• Save the run under your case workflow
• Export results after you confirm both:

  1. the timing gate looks correct (dates entered match your intent)
  2. the outcome comparison (if used) matches the tool’s “final judgment” field you selected

DocketMath can only compute from what you enter, so the date fields are especially important.

Common pitfalls

These are common reasons Kentucky offer analysis results can appear confusing or inconsistent in DocketMath.

• Ky. R. Civ. P. 68 keys on “more than thirty (30) days before the trial.” If your trial date input differs from the one you should be using, the timing pass/fail output can change.

• The statute’s timing is framed around an offer being served. If you enter a draft date, mail date, or another proxy instead of the service date the tool expects, the timeline calculation may not match your real-world sequence.

• Based on the provided excerpt, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified. Treat the 30+ day period as the general/default rule when running the analyzer with Ky. R. Civ. P. 68.

• “More than thirty (30) days” is stricter than “30 days or more.” If the tool’s logic is sensitive to day boundaries, the difference between 30 and 31 days (or the tool’s counting method) can matter.

• If the analyzer asks for final judgment amount, don’t enter a verdict total unless the tool explicitly tells you that’s acceptable for its “judgment” field. Otherwise, any offer-vs-outcome comparison may not reflect what you intend.

• If you change the trial date but forget to verify the offer service date, the timeline gap changes and downstream outputs can become internally inconsistent.

Try it

Run a timeline-first test so you can validate your setup quickly:

1. Timing gate compliance with Ky. R. Civ. P. 68 (30+ days before trial)
2. Any offer vs. outcome comparison results (only after timing looks right)

If you want to tighten your workflow, you can also use related DocketMath tools to cross-check litigation dates and document-driven inputs. Start with /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer, then compare against other /tools/ calculators if needed.

Related reading

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