How to run Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Wyoming

Step-by-step

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

This guide walks you through running Offer Of Judgment Analyzer in DocketMath for Wyoming (US-WY). It focuses on the tool workflow and how the jurisdiction-aware rules use Wyoming’s offer-of-judgment framework.

1) Open the analyzer for Wyoming

1. Go to the primary call-to-action: /tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer
2. In the jurisdiction selector (or jurisdiction-aware settings), choose Wyoming (US-WY).
3. Confirm the calculator is set to the Offer Of Judgment Analyzer workflow.

If you’re landing on DocketMath from another page, use the same entry point (/tools/offer-of-judgment-analyzer) to ensure you return to the right calculator.

2) Gather the inputs the analyzer expects

Offer-of-judgment math depends on what you’re comparing. Before you enter numbers in DocketMath, collect:

• Offer amount (the written offer you’re analyzing)
• Your expected/claimed amount to compare against (often the judgment outcome you want to measure against)
• Who makes the offer (defendant vs. plaintiff), if the interface distinguishes this
• Any time-related settings the tool asks for—especially for Wyoming’s “general/default period” behavior

Because DocketMath is designed to be jurisdiction-aware, Wyoming mode uses the statutory baseline. In Wyoming, the governing rule you’ll see reflected here is Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-201, which (at minimum) requires an offer to be in writing and served on the opposing party:

• Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-201: “In any civil action, an offer of judgment shall be made in writing and shall be served upon the opposing party or parties.”

3) Enter the offer and outcome numbers

In the analyzer fields:

• Input the offer amount as a number (no commas needed).
• Input the comparison value (commonly, the judgment you expect or the amount you want to test against).
• If the calculator includes fields for interest, costs, or other adjustments, enter the values you plan to include. If you don’t know them yet, start with what you do know and iterate.

How outputs change:

• If your judgment outcome is closer to or exceeds the offer amount (depending on how the tool models your scenario), the analyzer’s “advantage” indicators will typically shift accordingly.
• Any inputs for additional components (like costs/interest) usually change the modeled total differential—so keep these fields consistent with what you actually expect to be awarded.

4) Confirm Wyoming’s “default” timing behavior

Wyoming’s offer-of-judgment rule you have here uses the general baseline provision: Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-201.

Important clarity: No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found in the provided jurisdiction data. That means this setup should be treated as the general/default period.

In DocketMath, if there’s a timing field (for example, a modeled “effective window” or deadline), set it according to the analyzer’s Wyoming-default behavior based on this general provision.

5) Run the analysis

Click Calculate (or the equivalent button).

DocketMath should return, at a minimum:

• A summary of the modeled difference between the offer and the comparison value
• Any computed totals (including any time/cost/interest adjustments you entered)
• An explanation panel (if enabled), indicating which Wyoming baseline rule(s) it applied

6) Review outputs and iterate

Use the results to sanity-check your assumptions. If something looks off, adjust inputs in a controlled way:

• Change the offer amount
• Then change the comparison/judgment value
• Then revisit any timing/cost components (if applicable)

After each change, re-run the calculation so you can see how the analyzer reacts.

Iteration checklist

7) Use the statutory baseline as a sanity check

Before you treat any output as “final,” double-check that the offer mechanics match Wyoming’s statutory requirements. Even if the analyzer produces a strong numeric result, real-world validity still depends on compliance.

Under Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-201, the offer must be in writing and served upon the opposing party or parties:

• Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-201: “In any civil action, an offer of judgment shall be made in writing and shall be served upon the opposing party or parties.”

In other words: the tool can model numbers, but the statute governs whether an offer is properly made.

Common pitfalls

These are frequent ways people end up with misleading analyzer outputs or a mismatch between their modeled scenario and Wyoming requirements.

1. Assuming a claim-type-specific timing rule exists when the data only supports the general/default period

   • The jurisdiction data provided here indicates no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found.
   • Result: if you input timing as though a specialized rule applies, the modeled timing assumptions may not match Wyoming’s actual structure.

2. Skipping the “writing and service” mechanics required by Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-201

   • Even a mathematically favorable offer can be undermined if it wasn’t made in writing and served.
   • The analyzer doesn’t replace the need to comply with statutory form/service requirements.

3. Comparing the wrong value to the offer

   • Example: using a settlement demand or preliminary valuation instead of the comparison/judgment amount you intend to model.
   • Fix: confirm the comparison value field represents what the analyzer expects—typically the judgment amount you’re testing against.

4. Not iterating after changing key assumptions

   • A single transcription error (offer amount typed incorrectly) can shift the results.
   • Fix: re-run after each change, changing one variable at a time.

5. Forgetting Wyoming mode after switching calculators

   • If you navigate away and come back, verify US-WY remains selected.
   • Small configuration changes can materially affect jurisdiction-aware logic.

Try it

Here’s a practical way to validate that DocketMath is applying Wyoming logic correctly.

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 run test (useful even before you have final legal numbers)

1. Set jurisdiction to Wyoming (US-WY).
2. Enter:

   • Offer amount: 100,000
   • Comparison/judgment value: 90,000
3. Keep costs/interest at 0 (only if the tool supports those fields).
4. Run the analysis.
5. Change only one variable:

   • Increase the comparison/judgment value from 90,000 to 110,000
6. Re-run and confirm the outputs move in the expected direction.

What you’re checking:

• The analyzer responds to input changes
• Wyoming mode is correctly configured
• Timing assumptions stay consistent with the general/default period concept tied to Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-201 (no claim-type-specific override implied from the provided data)

Wyoming mechanics reminder (don’t over-trust the model)

Even if your numbers generate a favorable outcome, Wyoming’s baseline statutory requirements still control whether the offer is properly formed:

• Wyo. Stat. § 1-23-201: the offer must be in writing and served on the opposing party or parties.

Use the analyzer results as a planning aid for the math—then verify compliance separately based on your case facts and the statute.

Related reading

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