How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Oklahoma

Step-by-step

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

Here’s a practical walkthrough to run DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer for Oklahoma (US-OK) using jurisdiction-aware timing based on 12 O.S. § 1101. This guide is about using the tool, not providing legal advice.

1) Open the analyzer

Use the primary call-to-action link:

• /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer

If you’re already in DocketMath, you can also navigate to the same place from the tools area, then bookmark it for later.

2) Confirm the jurisdiction setting: US-OK

On the analyzer page, select or confirm:

• Jurisdiction: **Oklahoma (US-OK)

This matters because the analyzer applies Oklahoma’s rules—especially the timing window for whether the offer can trigger the statute’s effects.

3) Understand the timing rule the tool is applying (Oklahoma)

Oklahoma’s general offer of judgment statute is 12 O.S. § 1101. The statute provides (key points relevant for the analyzer’s timing check):

• The offer must be written.
• The offer must be made more than 10 days before trial to have the statutory effect described in the section.

In the DocketMath analyzer, that general/default timing rule is used because no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the provided jurisdiction data. In other words, the analyzer applies the same general “more than 10 days before trial” window (instead of switching to a different timing period for specific claim types).

Note (important): This is a general/default rule in this guide. The analyzer uses the same timing window referenced in 12 O.S. § 1101 because no Oklahoma claim-type-specific timing variant was identified in the available jurisdiction data.

4) Enter your “offer” details

The analyzer’s inputs drive the calculation. Fill in the fields that correspond to what the tool needs, typically including:

• Offer amount (the amount you offered)
• Proposed terms (if the tool asks for any additional structure around the offer)
• Trial date (the date the tool uses to measure “before trial”)
• Offer date (the date you’re treating as when the offer was made)

If the tool includes options like served date and/or filed date, use the field labels as the source of truth for what DocketMath expects, and be consistent with the date basis you intend to analyze.

5) Enter the “judgment outcome” to compare

To compare the economics of an offer versus the likely result, the analyzer generally needs at least one value such as:

• Judgment amount (often interpreted as the final monetary judgment total)

As you adjust this judgment figure, the tool’s comparison logic should update accordingly—so you can test how sensitive the outcome is to different judgment scenarios.

6) Review the eligibility checks (timing and form)

After you enter the dates and amounts, run the calculation and review any eligibility indicators.

For Oklahoma, prioritize these checks:

• Written requirement: the statute indicates an offer of judgment shall be a written offer.
• Timing check: the tool should confirm the offer was made more than 10 days before trial under 12 O.S. § 1101.

If you see a “not eligible” or “timing fail” style result:

• Re-check the trial date
• Re-check the offer date
• Confirm you’re treating the date that the tool uses as controlling for timing (based on DocketMath’s field labels)

7) Read the results (and run what-if scenarios)

Once results display, interpret them in two layers:

1. Eligibility/timing status (can the statute’s effect apply in the model based on your dates?)
2. Offer vs. judgment comparison (how does the modeled judgment figure relate to the offer amount?)

To understand what drives changes, run multiple scenarios, for example:

• Offer made with clear timing (well over 10 days before trial)
• Offer made near the 5-day boundary
• Offer amount changed while keeping dates constant

The most common workflow error is changing only one variable (like offer amount) without checking whether the eligibility status is still passing—if eligibility fails, the modeled financial impact may not be meaningful.

8) Save or export (if available)

If the analyzer offers a way to save/share/download:

• Save your scenario notes (offer amount and both dates)
• Keep a record of inputs, since small date adjustments can shift the more than 10 days before trial outcome

Common pitfalls

Most problems with offer-of-judgment analysis come from mechanical input issues—dates, definitions, and field mapping. Common pitfalls include:

• Using the wrong “offer date”

  • DocketMath’s timing check is only as accurate as the offer date you enter in the tool.
• Miscounting the “more than 10 days before trial” requirement

  • Oklahoma’s general rule is based on 12 O.S. § 1101.
  • “More than” is stricter than “10 days or fewer.”
• Forgetting this is the general/default rule

  • No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the provided data, so the analyzer applies the same general window referenced in 12 O.S. § 1101.
• Entering the judgment number incorrectly

  • If the tool asks for “judgment amount,” enter the figure intended for the analyzer’s statutory comparison model (commonly the final monetary judgment total).
• Assuming the tool equals a guaranteed legal outcome

  • DocketMath is analysis/scenario modeling based on your inputs and the Oklahoma statutory structure referenced in the tool.
  • It’s not a substitute for a lawyer’s review or a court’s determination.

Pitfall to watch: If the eligibility/timing status changes (pass vs. fail), that can be more important than the offer-vs-judgment math. Always check timing first, then interpret the comparison.

Try it

If you want to see how the analyzer behaves in Oklahoma (US-OK), try a controlled experiment.

Open the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer calculator and follow the steps above: Run the calculator.

Capture the source for each input so another team member can verify the same result quickly.

Quick 3-scenario test

• Scenario A (clear timing):

  • Set the offer date clearly more than 10 days before trial
  • Set the judgment amount below (or above) the offer—choose a direction and stick with it
• Scenario B (near the boundary):

  • Keep everything the same as Scenario A
  • Adjust only the offer date to be closer to the 5-day threshold
• Scenario C (change comparison only):

  • Keep dates the same as Scenario A
  • Change only the judgment amount (e.g., below vs. above the offer)

What to look for in DocketMath’s outputs

• In Scenario B, the timing/eligibility status should shift if the offer violates 12 O.S. § 1101’s more than 10 days rule.
• In Scenario C, the offer-vs-judgment financial impact should shift when you change only the judgment amount.

When you see the results update, you’ll be able to tell whether:

• the timing condition is the limiting factor, or
• the amount comparison is the deciding driver in the modeled outcome.

Ready to run your own numbers? Start here:

• /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer

Related reading

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