Step-by-step

Use DocketMath’s Offer Of Judgment Analyzer to model a Wyoming Wyo. R. Civ. P. 68 strategy under the rules for offers of judgment. This walkthrough focuses on running the tool with Wyoming jurisdiction-aware rules (jurisdiction code: US-WY) and interpreting the results.

1) Open the analyzer in DocketMath

Start here to launch the calculator:

• Primary CTA: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer

2) Select Wyoming (US-WY) rules

Inside the tool, set the Jurisdiction to:

• US-WY (Wyoming)

This ensures the analyzer applies Wyoming’s timing framework under Wyo. R. Civ. P. 68. In the provided rules text, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified, so the tool should rely on the general/default timing period described in the rule: serving more than 14 days before the trial begins.

3) Enter the offer details

Provide the core offer information the analyzer needs. Typical fields include:

• Offer amount (money or property value, depending on how you’re modeling it)
• Offer serving party role (defender vs. plaintiff)
• Costs treatment (if the interface asks how to treat “costs then accrued,” enter it consistently with how you want the model to compute net effect)
• Offer serving date and/or trial date (the analyzer uses this to measure the “more than 14 days” rule)

If the tool separates “amount in controversy” from “offer amount,” use:

• Amount in controversy = the expected baseline figure you’re comparing against (often tied to your damages model)
• Offer amount = the specific number in the Rule 68 offer

4) Enter the timeline inputs (key for Wyoming)

Wyoming’s timing trigger is based on the general rule text in Wyo. R. Civ. P. 68, which (in summary) allows service:

• “At any time more than 14 days before the trial begins” (for a defending party), and the rule continues with additional “within 14 days…” language.

Because the content provided does not identify any claim-type-specific alternative timing, the analyzer should treat “more than 14 days before trial begins” as the baseline eligibility requirement.

Quick checklist for the dates

• Have a trial start date (not a filing date)
• Have an offer serving date (not just the date you drafted the offer)
• Confirm the offer is strictly more than 14 days before trial begins for eligibility modeling

5) Add acceptance / rejection assumptions

Offer of Judgment outcomes depend heavily on whether the offer is accepted or rejected. In the analyzer, you may see fields such as:

• Accepted? (yes/no)
• Acceptance deadline (if prompted)
• Modeled judgment outcome (e.g., what the finder/judge awards)

If the tool provides a judgment comparison section, enter:

• Expected final judgment (the number the tool will compare against the offer terms)
• Comparison direction (depending on how the analyzer defines whose perspective drives the comparison)

6) Choose the cost assumptions the tool can use

Rule 68’s offer language includes the concept of “costs then accrued.” In the analyzer, provide cost-related inputs consistent with your best estimates. When the interface supports it, you’ll typically be asked for one or more of:

• Estimated recoverable costs
• Costs accrued at time of the offer
• How to treat post-offer costs (if included as a parameter)

Even if you don’t know the exact costs, small cost assumptions can materially affect net-effect results—so it’s usually better to run a few scenarios than to rely on a single guess.

7) Run the calculation and review outputs

After filling in the timeline + amount + judgment assumptions, click Calculate.

Review outputs in three layers:

1. Eligibility check (timeline)

   • Whether the offer date meets the “more than 14 days before the trial begins” serving requirement in Wyo. R. Civ. P. 68.
2. Net comparison (judgment vs. offer)

   • The tool compares the modeled judgment outcome to the offer terms based on its Rule 68 logic.
3. Cost-effect modeling

   • The analyzer estimates how costs shift depending on the offer status (e.g., accepted vs. rejected) and your inputs about costs accrued.

8) Save results and iterate

Run multiple scenarios to test sensitivity and reduce the risk of “one-number” overconfidence. Common iteration patterns:

• Offer amount: adjust in 5–10% increments around your expected judgment
• Costs: model low / medium / high cost-accrual assumptions
• Timing: test just-over-14-days vs. clearly earlier than 14 days (without intentionally placing the offer exactly on the boundary)

Wyoming rule basis the analyzer is using (what to look for)

Wyoming’s procedural rule is Wyo. R. Civ. P. 68. The critical timing language is:

• “At any time more than 14 days before the trial begins” a defending party may serve an offer…

The rule then contains additional “within 14 days…” language. Based on the provided rules excerpt, no claim-type-specific sub-rule was identified—so the analyzer should apply the general/default period as the baseline eligibility trigger: more than 14 days before the trial begins.

Source: Rules Civil Procedure PDF (Wyoming Courts) — https://www.courts.state.wy.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Rules_Civil_Procedure.pdf

Common pitfalls

DocketMath users run into predictable failure modes when applying Rule 68 timing and comparing outcomes. Watch for these:

Pitfalls checklist

• Using the wrong “trial date”

  • Enter the trial begins date, not a hearing date or scheduling conference.
• Offering exactly 14 days before trial

  • The rule uses “more than 14 days before”. If you model exactly 14 days, you’re at odds with the plain-text threshold.
• Swapping offer serving date vs. offer receipt date

  • The serving requirement focuses on when the offer is served.
• Mixing judgment assumptions with offer terms

  • Ensure “expected final judgment” is the number the tool expects for its comparison logic.
• Underestimating costs accrued at the time of the offer

  • Because the rule references “costs then accrued,” leaving costs at $0 can materially distort net-effect results.
• Skipping scenario iteration

  • A single run rarely shows where the boundary flips. Run at least 3 scenarios (e.g., low/medium/high costs and/or offer amounts).

Try it

Here’s a practical way to test the analyzer for Wyoming (US-WY) using your own estimates.

A fast 3-scenario test (recommended)

1. Scenario A (baseline)

   • Set offer amount = your baseline judgment estimate (or best forecast)
   • Costs = your middle estimate
   • Dates = offer served clearly more than 14 days before trial begins
2. Scenario B (offer amount sensitivity)

   • Adjust offer amount by ±10%
   • Keep dates the same
3. Scenario C (timing sensitivity)

   • Keep amount and costs the same as Scenario A
   • Move the offer date to a new test date:

     • one clearly > 14 days
     • one near but still more than 14 days
     • (avoid exact 14-day boundary unless you are intentionally stress-testing the threshold)

What to watch in the results screen

• Eligibility status (timeline)

  • Tied to the Rule 68 standard: more than 14 days before trial begins in Wyo. R. Civ. P. 68.
• Direction of net effect

  • Whether the modeled result favors the offeror given the judgment comparison.
• Magnitude of cost effects

  • How much the output changes when you alter “costs then accrued” assumptions.

Interpretation tip

• If eligibility flips when you adjust the offer date, timing is acting as the gating issue in the model.
• If eligibility remains stable but the net effect flips when you change offer amount, the decision boundary is more amount-driven than timing-driven.

Related reading

• How to calculate Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Philippines — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Worked example: Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Philippines — Worked example with real statute citations
• Inputs you need for Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in Philippines — Input checklist with sourcing guidance