Under review

missing_or_unverified_packet

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

Here’s a practical workflow for running Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Wisconsin (US-WI) using Wisconsin’s default offer-of-judgment timing structure from Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1).

Note: This guide explains how to operate the DocketMath tool and interpret its outputs. It is not legal advice.

1) Open the right tool

Go to the primary call-to-action: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer.
Confirm you’re using Wisconsin (US-WI) jurisdiction mode (or select it if the interface requires choosing a jurisdiction).

2) Identify the timing window your offer must satisfy (Wisconsin default)

For Wisconsin, the default timing requirement is:

After issue is joined, but at least 20 days before trial, the defendant may serve a written offer on the plaintiff (with costs).
Citation: Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1)
Source: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/807/01
Statute text (summary): “After issue is joined but at least 20 days before trial, the defendant may serve… a written offer… with costs…”

Important: The jurisdiction data provided found no claim-type-specific sub-rule. So this guide uses the general/default period described above, unless you later add Wisconsin claim-specific timing language from other sources.

Checklist for timing inputs

Issue joined date (or the closest procedural milestone you’re using consistently)
Trial date
Offer service date
Confirm the offer service date is ≥ 20 days before trial (per Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1))

3) Enter the core offer numbers

Offer Of Judgment Analyzer workflows typically ask for inputs in categories like (labels may vary):

Offer amount (the offer sum)
Costs assumptions (if the tool separates offer amount vs. costs)
Judgment outcome / comparator (the result the tool compares to the offer)

Practical approach:

Enter the judgment figure you want the tool to compare against the offer amount.
If you want “what-if” analysis, run separate calculations using different judgment outcomes.

4) Add “date math” inputs so the analyzer can apply the 20-day rule

Because the statute requirement is tied to:

when issue is joined happens, and
how far the offer is served before trial,

you’ll want to input dates that let the tool check both conditions.

Typical date inputs to provide:

Issue joined date
Offer service date
Trial date

Then verify the analyzer logic aligns with these two statutory checks:

Offer is served after issue is joined
Offer is served at least 20 days before trial

Quick pre-check (optional, but helpful)

Compute days between Offer Service Date and Trial Date
Confirm it’s 20+ days
Confirm offer service is after the issue joined date

5) Choose the role/side (if the interface asks)

Many offer-of-judgment tools let you select whose perspective you’re modeling.

Wisconsin’s statute structure (per the provided text) describes the defendant serving the written offer:

“the defendant may serve upon the plaintiff a written offer…” (Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1))

So, if DocketMath offers a toggle like “Offer served by defendant” vs. other roles, select the option that matches the defendant’s offer.

6) Run the calculation and review outputs

Once inputs are complete:

Click Calculate / Analyze.
Review outputs in (at least) two layers:
- Timing compliance: whether the offer meets “after issue joined” and “20 days before trial”
- Cost/fee exposure comparison: how the comparator (judgment outcome) stacks up against the offer amount, using any costs logic the tool models

Because Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1) includes the concept of an offer “with costs,” your results are most trustworthy when:

your cost inputs (if requested) are not left blank, and
your comparator aligns with what you intend to measure.

Common pitfalls

Use this checklist to avoid the most frequent issues when running US-WI in DocketMath.

Forgetting the 20-day minimum
Wisconsin’s default rule is “at least 20 days before trial” (Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1)). If you’re 19 days out, the tool may flag noncompliance and your “advantage” interpretation may be unreliable.
Entering the wrong “trial date”
If your case has multiple scheduled dates, ensure the date you enter represents the trial the statute is referring to (not a hearing date, status conference, etc.).
Using an “issue joined” date you can’t justify
The statute requires the offer be served after issue is joined (Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1)). If the date isn’t supportable, the tool can only reflect what you input.
Assuming claim-type-specific timing exists without confirming it
In the provided jurisdiction data, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found, so you should assume the general/default period unless you add verified claim-specific timing language.
Mixing incompatible “judgment outcome” concepts
Make sure the comparator value matches what the tool expects (for example, damages-only vs. damages plus certain items—whatever “judgment outcome” means in DocketMath’s input labels).
Omitting costs assumptions when the tool expects them
Wisconsin’s statute text references an offer “with costs” (Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1)). If DocketMath models costs and you leave them blank, outputs may be incomplete or less accurate.

Pitfall warning: A calculation that looks favorable on the numeric side can still be misleading if the offer fails the procedural prerequisites (“after issue is joined” and “20 days before trial”) required by Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1).

Try it

Here’s a quick way to validate your US-WI setup in DocketMath before relying on the results.

Minimal test run (sanity check)

Use your best available dates and run the analyzer once:

Then confirm two things in the output:

Timing compliance: Does the tool indicate the offer is in window (meets 20+ days before trial)?
Comparator logic: Does the tool clearly show how the judgment outcome is being compared to the offer amount?

Adjust one variable at a time

To understand what drives changes in the results, change only one input per run:

Run A: Keep everything the same; adjust offer service date by +1 day
Run B: Keep everything the same; adjust judgment outcome by a small amount
Run C: Keep everything the same; adjust costs assumptions (only if the interface provides them)

This helps you separate:

timeline failures (governed by Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1) timing)
from
exposure changes due to offer-vs-judgment math

Quick Wisconsin pass/fail logic to watch

Even before focusing on dollar outcomes, confirm:

Offer served after issue is joined (Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1))
Offer served at least 20 days before trial (Wis. Stat. § 807.01(1))

If either fails, treat the numeric comparison as secondary until the procedural prerequisites are corrected.

How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Wisconsin