Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. Registered visitors skip the Cloudflare checks, and your MCP token for Claude or ChatGPT is issued at the end of this.
Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
Here is your MCP token. It is shown once — it is also in the welcome email we just sent you, with setup steps.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
That address already had a token, so we did not issue a second one — two live credentials for one mailbox is how people end up with a working laptop and a broken office machine. Your connector URL is in your inbox under “Your Syfert legal research connector URL”; if it is gone, call 904-383-7448.
33 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Zerbstgreen2 sentences2025Those principles preclude a finding that Cole waived his current Second Amendment challenge.13 “A waiver is . . . an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938). 2025Those principles preclude a finding that Cole waived his current Second Amendment challenge.13 “A waiver is . . . an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938). | 16 | 27 |
Brewer v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1986Instead, the State has a heavy burden to prove “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938); see Williams, 430 U.S. at 404 , 97 S.Ct. at 1242 , 51 L.Ed.2d at 439 . 1986Instead, the State has a heavy burden to prove “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938); see Williams, 430 U.S. at 404 , 97 S.Ct. at 1242 , 51 L.Ed.2d at 439 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. McClellandgreen2 sentences1972State v. McClelland, 164 N.W.2d 189, 195 (Iowa 1969). 1971State v. McClelland, 164 N.W.2d 189, 195 , (Iowa 1969). | 2 | 3 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen2 sentences2022Likewise, the Court rejected the argument Hauge makes here that consent to search should be treated like a waiver of a trial right, as the right to counsel was treated in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938), in which the Supreme Court held the waiver of that right requires the State to demonstrate “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 243–45. 2022The Court frankly proclaimed, “Nothing, either in the purposes behind requiring a ‘knowing’ and ‘intelligent’ waiver of trial rights, or in the practical application of such a requirement suggests that it ought to be extended to the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures” because the protections of the Fourth Amendment “have nothing whatever to do with promoting the fair ascertainment of truth at a criminal trial.” Id. at 241, 242. | 1 | 4 |
State of Iowa v. Deyawna Leanett Taylorgreen2 sentences2021“In order to show waiver, there must be a showing of ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’” State v. Taylor, 881 N.W.2d 72, 78 (Iowa 2016) (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938)). “[T]o waive speedy trial rights, the defendant must do so knowingly and intelligently.” Id. at 79. 2016“In order to show waiver, there must be a showing of ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.’” Taylor, 881 N.W.2d at 78 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 (1938)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gorhamgreen2 sentences2016In order to show waiver, there must be a showing of “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Id. (quoting Zerbst, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S. Ct. at 1023 , 82 L. 2016See Gorham, 206 N.W.2d at 911 , In order to show waiver, there must be a showing of “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Id. (quoting Zerbst, 304 U.S. at 464 , 58 S.Ct. at 1023 , 82 L.Ed. at 1466 ). | 1 | 2 |
Department of Health v. Donahuegreen1 sentence2014Waiver is defined as the “intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege.” Dep’t of Health v. Donahue, 690 P.2d 243, 247 (Colo. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013The McCarthy Court noted that under Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938), constitutional rights may be waived only when there is an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” McCarthy, 394 U.S. at 466 , 89 S.Ct. at 1170 , 22 L.Ed.2d at 425 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2013The McCarthy Court noted that under Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938), constitutional rights may be waived only when there is an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” McCarthy, 394 U.S. at 466 , 89 S.Ct. at 1170 , 22 L.Ed.2d at 425 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hilpipregreen1 sentence2013The determination of whether there has been an intelligent waiver of right to counsel must depend, in each case, upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused. 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 68 L.Ed. 1461 , 1466 (1938) (footnotes omitted); see also State v. Hilpipre, 242 N.W.2d 306, 309 (Iowa 1976) (“It is well settled an individual may legally waive his or her constitutional rights. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1987Nelsen, 390 N.W.2d at 592 (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)); State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 435 (Iowa), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 848 , 103 S.Ct. 106 , 74 L.Ed.2d 95 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fettersgreen1 sentence1983Waiver is “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938); State v. Fetters, 202 N.W.2d 84, 89 (Iowa 1972); accord Iowa Grain v. Farmers Grain & Feed Go., 293 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Iowa 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Iowa Grain v. Farmers Grain and Feed Co., Inc.green1 sentence1983Waiver is “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938); State v. Fetters, 202 N.W.2d 84, 89 (Iowa 1972); accord Iowa Grain v. Farmers Grain & Feed Go., 293 N.W.2d 22, 25 (Iowa 1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reppertgreen1 sentence1976We also recognized for this waiver to be valid under the Due Process Clause it must be “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” A similar statement of principle was expressed in State v. Reppert, 215 N.W.2d 302, 304 (Iowa 1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nelsen
green
2 sentences2003Rather, the State bears a heavy burden to show “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938); Nelsen, 390 N.W.2d at 592 . 1987Nelsen, 390 N.W.2d at 592 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)). | 3 | 1987–2003 |
Gadomski v. Common Pleas Court of Pennsylvania
green
1 sentence1987Nelsen, 390 N.W.2d at 592 (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)); State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 435 (Iowa), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 848 , 103 S.Ct. 106 , 74 L.Ed.2d 95 (1982). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hazeem v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Nelsen, 390 N.W.2d at 592 (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)); State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 435 (Iowa), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 848 , 103 S.Ct. 106 , 74 L.Ed.2d 95 (1982). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Veteto v. Payne
green
1 sentence1987Nelsen, 390 N.W.2d at 592 (citing Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461, 1466 (1938)); State v. Johnson, 318 N.W.2d 417, 435 (Iowa), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 848 , 103 S.Ct. 106 , 74 L.Ed.2d 95 (1982). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1985In addition to being voluntary, the waiver must: ... constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case “upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. at 482 , 101 S.Ct. at 1884 , 68 L.Ed.2d at 385 . 1985In addition to being voluntary, the waiver must: ... constitute a knowing and intelligent relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege, a matter which depends in each case “upon the particular facts and circumstances surrounding that case, including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused.” Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. at 482 , 101 S.Ct. at 1884 , 68 L.Ed.2d at 385 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Karston
green
2 sentences1970Waiver has often been defined in this regard as "an intentional relinquishment of or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; State v. Karston, 247 Iowa 32 , 72 N.W.2d 463 ; People v. Marsh, 14 Mich.App. 518 , 165 N.W.2d 853 (1968); Babbs, Inc. v. Babb, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 211 (1969); Broadbent v. Hegge, 44 Wis.2d 719 , 172 N.W.2d 34 (1969). 1970Waiver has often been defined in this regard as "an intentional relinquishment of or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; State v. Karston, 247 Iowa 32 , 72 N.W.2d 463 ; People v. Marsh, 14 Mich.App. 518 , 165 N.W.2d 853 (1968); Babbs, Inc. v. Babb, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 211 (1969); Broadbent v. Hegge, 44 Wis.2d 719 , 172 N.W.2d 34 (1969). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Marsh
green
2 sentences1970Waiver has often been defined in this regard as "an intentional relinquishment of or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; State v. Karston, 247 Iowa 32 , 72 N.W.2d 463 ; People v. Marsh, 14 Mich.App. 518 , 165 N.W.2d 853 (1968); Babbs, Inc. v. Babb, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 211 (1969); Broadbent v. Hegge, 44 Wis.2d 719 , 172 N.W.2d 34 (1969). 1970Waiver has often been defined in this regard as "an intentional relinquishment of or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; State v. Karston, 247 Iowa 32 , 72 N.W.2d 463 ; People v. Marsh, 14 Mich.App. 518 , 165 N.W.2d 853 (1968); Babbs, Inc. v. Babb, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 211 (1969); Broadbent v. Hegge, 44 Wis.2d 719 , 172 N.W.2d 34 (1969). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Babb's, Inc. v. Babb
green
2 sentences1970R. 357; State v. Karston, 247 Iowa 32 , 72 N.W.2d 463 ; People v. Marsh, 14 Mich. App. 518 , 165 N.W.2d 853 (1968); Babbs, Inc. v. Babb, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 211 (1969); Broadbent v. Hegge, 44 Wis.2d 719 , 172 N.W.2d 34 (1969). 1970Waiver has often been defined in this regard as "an intentional relinquishment of or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; State v. Karston, 247 Iowa 32 , 72 N.W.2d 463 ; People v. Marsh, 14 Mich.App. 518 , 165 N.W.2d 853 (1968); Babbs, Inc. v. Babb, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 211 (1969); Broadbent v. Hegge, 44 Wis.2d 719 , 172 N.W.2d 34 (1969). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Broadbent v. Hegge
green
2 sentences1970Waiver has often been defined in this regard as "an intentional relinquishment of or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; State v. Karston, 247 Iowa 32 , 72 N.W.2d 463 ; People v. Marsh, 14 Mich.App. 518 , 165 N.W.2d 853 (1968); Babbs, Inc. v. Babb, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 211 (1969); Broadbent v. Hegge, 44 Wis.2d 719 , 172 N.W.2d 34 (1969). 1970Waiver has often been defined in this regard as "an intentional relinquishment of or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; State v. Karston, 247 Iowa 32 , 72 N.W.2d 463 ; People v. Marsh, 14 Mich.App. 518 , 165 N.W.2d 853 (1968); Babbs, Inc. v. Babb, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 211 (1969); Broadbent v. Hegge, 44 Wis.2d 719 , 172 N.W.2d 34 (1969). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Gloria Jean Narro v. United States
green
2 sentences1969At page 301, 246 A.2d the court says: “And equally plain from Miranda is the flat holding at pages 475 and 479, 86 S.Ct. at pages 1628 and 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d that no evidence obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation can be used against an accused unless and until the prosecution demonstrates a waiver of constitutional rights within the meaning of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 [ 146 A.L.R. 357 ], a case which holds that waiver of a fundamental constitutional right is ordinarily ‘an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege’, 1969At page 301, 246 A.2d the court says: "And equally plain from Miranda is the flat holding at pages 475 and 479, 86 S.Ct. at pages 1628 and 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d that no evidence obtained as a result of a custodial interrogation can be used against an accused unless and until the prosecution demonstrates a waiver of constitutional rights within the meaning of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 [ 146 A.L.R. 357 ], a case which holds that waiver of a fundamental constitutional right is ordinarily `an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege', | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.