How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Oregon

6 min read

Published June 4, 2026 • By DocketMath Team

Partially verified

older_than_packet

Open the live calculator View on primary source

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change frequently — verify all citations with current official sources.

Step-by-step

This guide walks you through running the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Oregon (US-OR) using jurisdiction-aware rules centered on ORS § 17.065 (Offer to Compromise + Allow Judgment). The analyzer helps you model how an offer might affect potential exposure if an offer is served before trial and (critically) if it’s accepted within the statutory deadline.

Note: This is a workflow explanation, not legal advice. Use it to organize the numbers and deadlines you’re working with under ORS § 17.065.

1) Open the tool

Go to /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer.
Confirm you’re using the Oregon (US-OR) configuration.
- If the tool offers jurisdiction selection, choose US-OR (Oregon).

2) Gather the inputs DocketMath expects

To run the analyzer accurately, collect the offer and case timing details needed for ORS § 17.065, which allows a defendant to serve an “offer to allow judgment” for a specified sum or effect if served at any time before trial. While the exact field names depend on the calculator layout, you’ll typically enter:

Offer amount (the “sum” specified), or an “effect” option if your case uses that framing
Date offer was served (important—this starts the statutory window)
Trial date (so the tool can evaluate the “before trial” requirement)
Date of acceptance (or any input the tool uses to anchor acceptance timing)
Date plaintiff gives notice of acceptance (this is what must fall within the statutory window)
Dollar figures used in the underlying claim (e.g., claimed damages) so the tool can compare the offer against recovery/claim values

If you don’t have every date, run two scenarios:

one using the earliest plausible acceptance/notice date, and
another using the latest plausible acceptance/notice date.

This often shows whether timing pushes the result across the statutory boundary.

3) Enter the Oregon-specific timing logic

ORS § 17.065 is the key to how Oregon’s timing works in the analyzer.

Under the statute, the defendant may serve the offer at any time before trial. If the plaintiff:

accepts the offer, and
gives notice within 3 days after service,

the statute provides the required downstream effect (the analyzer will model that effect based on its Oregon rules).

Default period for notice/acceptance:
Your jurisdiction data indicates no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found. So you should treat the 3-day period as the general/default period under ORS § 17.065 for the acceptance/notice window (rather than switching deadlines based on claim type).

4) Confirm your scenario in the calculator

After you enter the amounts and dates:

Check the tool’s jurisdiction indicator (for example, Oregon / US-OR).
Verify the calculator is actually using your trial date to confirm the offer was served “before trial.”
Confirm the tool uses your service date (not just the filing date) to measure the “3 days after service” notice window.
If the acceptance/notice dates are close, enter exact dates instead of approximate ranges—a single-day change can matter for a 3-day trigger.

5) Read the outputs and interpret changes

Once you run the calculation, DocketMath will produce outputs based on the offer/acceptance timing under ORS § 17.065.

In practical terms, the outputs usually respond to things like:

whether the notice of acceptance is within 3 days after service
whether the offer was served before trial
how the offer amount compares to claim values or expected recovery numbers

To see what drives the results, compare at least two runs:

Scenario A: Notice of acceptance is within 3 days after service
Scenario B: Notice of acceptance is 4+ days after service
Optionally Scenario C: Offer served close to trial (to test whether the model treats it as still “before trial”)

Quick comparison checklist

What you’re testing	Key input	What changes in results (typical)
Acceptance timing	Notice date relative to service	Results often shift sharply when moving inside vs. outside the 3-day window
Offer timing	Offer served date vs. trial date	If not “before trial,” the statutory pathway may not apply in the model
Money position	Offer amount vs. claim value	Exposure modeling changes because the offer becomes the comparison anchor

Common pitfalls

Running the analyzer is usually straightforward, but these issues commonly produce wrong or confusing outcomes:

Using estimated dates (e.g., “about a week”)
With ORS § 17.065, the key trigger is 3 days after service. Estimates can accidentally move you across the boundary.
Assuming a different deadline by claim type
Your jurisdiction data shows no claim-type-specific sub-rule found, so use the 3-day general/default window under ORS § 17.065.
Entering the wrong “served” date
The statute measures the window from service of the offer. If you use a filing date instead, your “within 3 days” conclusion can flip.
Forgetting the “before trial” requirement
The offer must be served “at any time before trial.” If the trial date is incorrect (or if the offer date is after trial), the model may treat the statutory mechanism as inapplicable.
Confusing “acceptance” with “notice”
The statute ties the critical window to notice given within three days after service after acceptance. If acceptance happened early but notice happened late, the analyzer’s modeled effect may change.

Warning: If your results swing significantly between two runs, re-check timing inputs first—around the 3-day notice window, even a single-day difference is a frequent root cause.

Try it

Use this quick workflow to test your Oregon (US-OR) facts in DocketMath:

Set jurisdiction to US-OR (Oregon) in Offer Of Judgment Analyzer.
Enter:
- Offer amount (or offer “effect,” if supported)
- Date offer was served
- Trial date
- Notice of acceptance date
Run Scenario A:
- Set notice of acceptance to a date within 3 days after service
Run Scenario B:
- Move notice of acceptance to a date 4+ days after service
Compare the outputs:
- Identify which fields change most—often the results that depend on acceptance/notice timing.
If outputs look counterintuitive:
- Re-check “served date” and “notice date” before adjusting claim-value numbers.

To keep your testing organized, record each run like this:

Scenario A (within 3 days):
- Served: ___
- Notice of acceptance: ___ (≤ 3 days after service)
- Output summary: ___
Scenario B (after 3 days):
- Served: ___
- Notice of acceptance: ___ (> 3 days after service)
- Output summary: ___

If you want a one-sentence anchor for Oregon logic while testing: ORS § 17.065’s key pathway depends on acceptance with notice given within 3 days after service, and the offer must be served before trial.