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.
22 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2022 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hawk v. Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc.green2 sentences2022Hawk v. Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 282 N.W.2d 84, 91 (Iowa 1979) (en banc). 2022Hawk v. Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 282 N.W.2d 84, 91 (Iowa 1979) (en banc). | 2 | 2 |
Valdez v. United Parcel Servicegreen2 sentences2020Colorado has held that where an employee files a new injury claim within the statute of limitations for reopening an earlier claim, the statute of limitations on the reopening claim is tolled if it is later determined that the employee’s “current condition is the natural result of the [earlier] injury, he has not suffered a new injury and benefits may be 17 obtained only by way of a petition to reopen.” Valdez v. United Parcel Serv., 728 P.2d 340, 342 (Colo. App. 1986). 2020Colorado has held that where an employee files a new injury claim within the statute of limitations for reopening an earlier claim, the statute of limitations on the reopening claim is tolled if it is later determined that the employee’s “current condition is the natural result of the [earlier] injury, he has not suffered a new injury and benefits may be 17 obtained only by way of a petition to reopen.” Valdez v. United Parcel Serv., 728 P.2d 340, 342 (Colo. App. 1986). | 2 | 2 |
Ladner v. Ingegreen2 sentences2015See Ladner v. Inge, 603 So.2d 1012, 1015 (Ala. 1992) (concluding the plaintiff suffered an actual injury "when she accepted ... unsecured promissory notes" in exchange for real estate): Vision Mortg. 2015See Ladner v. Inge, 603 So. 2d 1012, 1015 (Ala. 1992) (concluding the plaintiff suffered an actual injury “when she accepted . . . unsecured promissory notes” in exchange for real estate); Vision Mortg. | 2 | 2 |
Ellingson v. Fleetguard, Inc.green2 sentences2020Comm’n Nos. 5040834 & 5056052, 2019 WL 1984043 , at *12 (Apr. 29, 2019) (quoting Ellingson, 599 N.W.2d at 444 ). 2020Comm’n Nos. 5040834 & 5056052, 2019 WL 1984043 , at *12 (Apr. 29, 2019) (quoting Ellingson, 599 N.W.2d at 444 ). | 1 | 3 |
Hawkeye Foodservice Distribution, Inc. v. Iowa Educators Corporationgreen2 sentences2022While loss of competitive interest can fulfill this injury requirement, “[a]n injury is more likely to be imminent, and therefore sufficient to support standing, if the plaintiff alleges that it has ‘actually lost business in the past as a result of’ improper governmental action.” Id. (citation omitted). 2013See 812 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 2012). | 1 | 2 |
Fuller v. Buhrowgreen2 sentences1988We opted for a rule which recognizes "the negligence of another, not the plaintiff, [having] concurred in producing the injury is no defense to any of those whose negligence proximately caused the injury." Fuller, 292 N.W.2d at 674 . 1988We opted for a rule which recognizes “the negligence of another, not the plaintiff, [having] concurred in producing the injury is no defense to any of those whose negligence proximately caused the injury.” Fuller, 292 N.W.2d at 674 . | 1 | 2 |
Larson Manufacturing Co. v. Thorsongreen1 sentence2016We agree with the district court’s conclusion that Marshall’s voluntary retirement and his act of working without restriction for a time after the injury are factors to consider, but those factors “are not alone determinative on the issue of industrial disability.” See Flexsteel Indus., Inc. v. Scholl, Nos. 0-250, 99-1006, 2000 WL 1288900 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 13, 2000) (finding employee’s return to work and post-injury retirement for unrelated reasons are only two of 26 many relevant factors to consider in determining industrial disability and the employer’s argument based on those fac | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2005See, e.g., Cole, 242 Iowa at 426 , 46 N.W.2d at 817 ; McGrath, 224 Iowa at 223 , 275 N.W. at 470-71 ; Lougee, 133 Iowa at 50-51 , 110 N.W. at 166 . 2005See, e.g., Cole, 242 Iowa at 426 , 46 N.W.2d at 817 ; McGrath, 224 Iowa at 223 , 275 N.W. at 470-71 ; Lougee, 133 Iowa at 50-51 , 110 N.W. at 166 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Herbert James Eagle Thunder, United States of America v. Hobart William Garneaux
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Richards v. Iowa Department of Revenue & Finance
green
2 sentences2008In Richards v. Iowa Department of Revenue & Finance, 454 N.W.2d 573 (Iowa 1990), we held a taxpayer had standing to challenge a decision to grant a property tax exemption to a private, nonprofit commu nity living center for the elderly because the decision had the effect of placing a greater tax burden on the litigant. 454 N.W.2d at 576 . 2008In Richards v. Iowa Department of Revenue & Finance, 454 N.W.2d 573 (Iowa 1990), we held a taxpayer had standing to challenge a decision to grant a property tax exemption to a private, nonprofit commu nity living center for the elderly because the decision had the effect of placing a greater tax burden on the litigant. 454 N.W.2d at 576 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Rolon
green
1 sentence2021Rec. 34,913 (1978) (subdivision (b)(2)(A) applies to “certain physical consequences”))), abrogated on other grounds by Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990); State v. Rolon, 777 A.2d 604 , 613 n.18 (Conn. 2001) (“The defendant also made a ‘source of injury’ argument. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
1 sentence2021Rec. 34,913 (1978) (subdivision (b)(2)(A) applies to “certain physical consequences”))), abrogated on other grounds by Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990); State v. Rolon, 777 A.2d 604 , 613 n.18 (Conn. 2001) (“The defendant also made a ‘source of injury’ argument. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. James Shaw
green
1 sentence2021Our interpretation is consistent with federal and state cases interpreting the injury requirement.2 See United States v. Shaw, 824 F.2d 601 , 603 n.2 (8th Cir.1987) (“Furthermore, it is clear that Rule 412’s injury exception does not apply to emotional injuries unaccompanied by a cognizable physical consequence.” (citing 124 Cong. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION v. Kinder Morgan Operating LP
green
1 sentence2016“A”, 192 S.W.3d 120 , 126–27 (Tex. App. 2006) (stating under the independent injury rule “if the defendant’s conduct would give rise to liability independent of the fact that a contract exists between the parties, the plaintiff’s claim may sound in both tort and contract, but if the defendant’s conduct would give rise to liability only because it breaches the parties’ agreement, the plaintiff’s claim ordinarily sounds only in contract”). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Franzen v. Deere and Co.
green
1 sentence2015“The rule is based on the theory that a statute of limitations should not bar the remedy of a person who has been excusably unaware of the existence of the cause of action.” Franzen, 377 N.W.2d at 662 . 6We acknowledge a few courts have decided insecurity alone constitutes an actual injury for claim accrual purposes. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McGrath v. Dougherty
green
2 sentences2005See, e.g., Cole, 242 Iowa at 426 , 46 N.W.2d at 817 ; McGrath, 224 Iowa at 223 , 275 N.W. at 470-71 ; Lougee, 133 Iowa at 50-51 , 110 N.W. at 166 . 2005See, e.g., Cole, 242 Iowa at 426 , 46 N.W.2d at 817 ; McGrath, 224 Iowa at 223 , 275 N.W. at 470-71 ; Lougee, 133 Iowa at 50-51 , 110 N.W. at 166 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Lougee v. Reed
green
2 sentences2005See, e.g., Cole, 242 Iowa at 426 , 46 N.W.2d at 817 ; McGrath, 224 Iowa at 223 , 275 N.W. at 470-71 ; Lougee, 133 Iowa at 50-51 , 110 N.W. at 166 . 2005See, e.g., Cole, 242 Iowa at 426 , 46 N.W.2d at 817 ; McGrath, 224 Iowa at 223 , 275 N.W. at 470-71 ; Lougee, 133 Iowa at 50-51 , 110 N.W. at 166 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Handeland v. Brown
green
2 sentences1980Our conclusion there is equally applicable here: “[W]e do not believe any proper basis exists for excluding from the operation of that principle only situations where concurrent proximate negligence of the injured person is pleaded as a defense to the claim of one who holds a legally protected interest in the health or life of such injured person.” 216 N.W.2d at 578 . 1980Our conclusion there is equally applicable here: "[W]e do not believe any proper basis exists for excluding from the operation of that principle only situations where concurrent proximate negligence of the injured person is pleaded as a defense to the claim of one who holds a legally protected interest in the health or life of such injured person." 216 N.W.2d at 578 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Savery v. Kist
green
2 sentences1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . 1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Harvey v. Borg
green
2 sentences1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . 1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co.
green
2 sentences1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . 1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz
green
2 sentences1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . 1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom
green
2 sentences1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . 1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Ruud v. Grimm
green
2 sentences1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . 1966Schneider v. Swaney Motor Car Co., 257 Iowa 1177 , 136 N.W.2d 338 ; Ruud v. Grimm, 252 Iowa 1266 , 110 N.W.2d 321 ; Gilbrech v. Kloberdanz, 252 Iowa 509 , 107 N.W.2d 574 ; John Rooff & Sons, Inc. v. Winterbottom, 249 Iowa 122 , 86 N.W.2d 131 ; Savery v. Kist, 234 Iowa 98 , 11 N.W.2d 23 ; Harvey v. Borg, 218 Iowa 1228 , 257 N.W. 190 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Orr v. Des Moines Electric Light Co.
green
2 sentences1957Light Co., 207 Iowa 1149, 1155 , 222 N.W. 560 , 562 it is said, "It is only where the evidence shows the acts which produced the injury that the presumption of negligence can arise under this doctrine. 1957Light Co., 207 Iowa 1149, 1155 , 222 N.W. 560 , 562 it is said, "It is only where the evidence shows the acts which produced the injury that the presumption of negligence can arise under this doctrine. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.