How to run Settlement Allocator in DocketMath for Wyoming

Step-by-step

This guide walks you through running Settlement Allocator in DocketMath for Wyoming (US-WY) using Wyoming jurisdiction-aware rules.

Before you start, gather the figures you’ll need for allocation: the total settlement amount and the case value inputs the calculator uses to apportion the settlement across covered items. If your settlement agreement already allocates amounts by claim or category, you can still use Settlement Allocator to test whether the internal math aligns with your agreement.

1) Open the Wyoming Settlement Allocator in DocketMath

1. Go to DocketMath’s Settlement Allocator tool: /tools/settlement-allocator.
2. Select or confirm jurisdiction: US-WY (Wyoming).
3. Choose the Calculator: settlement-allocator workflow if DocketMath prompts you for a calculator type.

2) Enter the amounts required by the allocator

DocketMath’s Settlement Allocator typically asks for:

• Total settlement amount (use the same baseline you intend to allocate)
• Case value basis (the amounts used to weight allocation; commonly entered as per-item values)
• Any optional inputs exposed by the tool UI (for example, weights, categories, or adjustments depending on the workflow configuration)

If you have multiple items to allocate (for example, multiple parties or damage categories), enter each item value in the corresponding fields.

Tip: Keep a single source of truth for “total settlement” (often the amount in the executed agreement). If you enter a different figure in Total settlement amount than what your item inputs imply, the output may show a residual or rounding effect.

3) Confirm the jurisdiction-aware rules selection

Wyoming configuration is designed to apply jurisdiction-aware defaults tied to Wyoming procedural requirements.

For this guide, there’s an important timing detail to understand:

• No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found.
• Therefore, the period used is the general/default period for the applicable rule set.

If your DocketMath workflow includes any time-based assumptions, the tool will reflect this general/default behavior rather than claim-type-specific timing.

4) Run the calculation

1. Click Calculate (or the equivalent button in DocketMath).
2. Review the output table(s) and summary totals.

Common output elements include:

• Allocated amounts per item/category
• Percent shares or weighting indicators (depending on the UI)
• Rounding behavior—line-item allocations may not sum perfectly to the total settlement due to rounding

5) Validate outputs against your inputs

Use a quick checklist:

• Allocated line items sum to (or are extremely close to) the total settlement amount
• Each item’s allocated amount responds appropriately to its input case value (increase the input → expect the allocation to increase)
• Any residual/adjustment line item is present and consistent with the tool’s calculation logic

If you see a meaningful residual, investigate:

• mismatched Total settlement amount vs. the item input basis sums
• missing or mis-entered items
• inconsistent baseline (for example, entering net total but gross item values, or vice versa)

6) Save or export the results

Depending on DocketMath’s interface, you can usually:

• Save the run for later comparison
• Export to a document-friendly format

If you’re running multiple scenarios (for example, revised item values), label each scenario clearly so you can compare differences.

Common pitfalls

Settlement allocation workflows fail in predictable ways. This section calls out the most common issues to watch for when running Wyoming (US-WY) in DocketMath and when working with allocation math in general.

1) Assuming claim-type-specific timing rules exist in this workflow

DocketMath’s Wyoming configuration here uses the general/default period because:

• No claim-type-specific sub-rule was found

Before you rely on any time-based outputs (if present), confirm:

• You’re not expecting different timing logic by claim type in this workflow
• Your scenario doesn’t require an override that the tool doesn’t expose

2) Mixing net and gross settlement numbers

This is one of the most common causes of allocation drift.

Example:

• Total settlement entered: $750,000 (net)
• Item values entered as: $800,000 (gross)

Even with correct allocation math, the calculator can only allocate what you provided. The residual you see may reflect the inconsistency between baselines.

3) Ignoring rounding effects

Many allocators round at the line-item level. That can lead to:

• a small residual on the final line
• minor differences between the sum of allocations and the original total

If the residual is small, it’s often normal. If it’s large, revisit inputs first rather than assuming it’s only rounding.

4) Misunderstanding what Rule 23 does (and doesn’t)

Wyo. R. Civ. P. 23 is procedural and relates to class action mechanics (such as certification-related considerations). Your DocketMath allocation run is a math workflow; it doesn’t automatically perform a certification analysis.

So:

• Rule 23 informs the procedural-context awareness for the jurisdiction setting
• it does not mean every settlement must be treated as a Rule 23 class-action analysis inside the calculator

5) Skipping reconciliation

Before you rely on the result:

• Confirm total settlement consistency
• Confirm each item has a correct value (and isn’t accidentally omitted)
• Confirm there are no accidental duplicate entries
• Confirm units are consistent (dollars vs. thousands, etc.)

Try it

Here’s a practical way to test the workflow quickly in DocketMath for US-WY.

Quick test scenario (math-only verification)

1. Open /tools/settlement-allocator.
2. Set jurisdiction to US-WY.
3. Enter:

   • Total settlement amount: $100,000
   • Two item values: $25,000 and $75,000
4. Run the calculation.
5. Verify:

   • the $25,000 item receives about 25%
   • the $75,000 item receives about 75%
   • allocations sum to (or nearly sum to) the total due to rounding

Add realism: change one input and rerun

Now update only one value:

• Increase item A from $25,000 → $30,000
• Update item B only if your workflow requires it (otherwise keep it constant)

You should see:

• item A’s allocated share increase
• item B’s share decrease (if total basis is fixed)
• the totals reconcile as expected (allowing for rounding)

This is the fastest way to confirm your inputs are wired correctly before you enter scenario-specific values.

Wyoming rule context check

If your run includes time-based elements, confirm the tool is using the general/default period rather than claim-type-specific periods, since:

• no claim-type-specific sub-rule was found for this jurisdiction configuration in the provided rule data.

Related reading

• How to calculate Settlement Allocator in Ohio — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• How to calculate Settlement Allocator in Philippines — Full how-to guide with jurisdiction-specific rules
• Worked example: Settlement Allocator in Philippines — Worked example with real statute citations

Wyoming rule source (procedural context): Wyo. R. Civ. P. 23 (Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure PDF): https://www.courts.state.wy.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/WRCP.pdf