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.
20 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1915–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho 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 |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. Kvammegreen2 sentences2023“Summary judgment proceedings are decided on the basis of admissible evidence.” Campbell v. Kvamme, 155 Idaho 692, 696 , 316 P.3d 104, 108 (2013). 2023“Summary judgment proceedings are decided on the basis of admissible evidence.” Campbell v. Kvamme, 155 Idaho 692, 696 , 316 P.3d 104, 108 (2013). | 2 | 2 |
Sheridan v. St. Luke's Regional Medical Centergreen2 sentences2020Ctr., 135 Idaho 775, 785 , 25 P.3d 88, 98 (holding “a jury could reasonably and naturally infer from the 6 chain of circumstances, [without expert testimony], that a breach of the standard of care . . . proximately caused [the plaintiff’s] injuries.”), with Easterling v. Kendall, 159 Idaho 902, 917 , 367 P.3d 1214, 1229 (2016) (holding “a jury comprised of lay people was not qualified to determine” causation from the chain of circumstances; direct expert testimony was required.). 2020Ctr., 135 Idaho 775, 785 , 25 P.3d 88, 98 (holding “a jury could reasonably and naturally infer from the 6 chain of circumstances, [without expert testimony], that a breach of the standard of care . . . proximately caused [the plaintiff’s] injuries.”), with Easterling v. Kendall, 159 Idaho 902, 917 , 367 P.3d 1214, 1229 (2016) (holding “a jury comprised of lay people was not qualified to determine” causation from the chain of circumstances; direct expert testimony was required.). | 1 | 6 |
Easterling v. Kendall, M.D.green2 sentences2020Ctr., 135 Idaho 775, 785 , 25 P.3d 88, 98 (holding “a jury could reasonably and naturally infer from the 6 chain of circumstances, [without expert testimony], that a breach of the standard of care . . . proximately caused [the plaintiff’s] injuries.”), with Easterling v. Kendall, 159 Idaho 902, 917 , 367 P.3d 1214, 1229 (2016) (holding “a jury comprised of lay people was not qualified to determine” causation from the chain of circumstances; direct expert testimony was required.). 2020Ctr., 135 Idaho 775, 785 , 25 P.3d 88, 98 (holding “a jury could reasonably and naturally infer from the 6 chain of circumstances, [without expert testimony], that a breach of the standard of care . . . proximately caused [the plaintiff’s] injuries.”), with Easterling v. Kendall, 159 Idaho 902, 917 , 367 P.3d 1214, 1229 (2016) (holding “a jury comprised of lay people was not qualified to determine” causation from the chain of circumstances; direct expert testimony was required.). | 1 | 1 |
J.P. Stravens Planning Associates, Inc. v. City of Wallacegreen2 sentences2014See id. at 545 , 928 P.2d at 49 n.l. 2014See id. at 545 , 928 P.2d at 49 n.l. | 1 | 1 |
Dunlap by and Through Dunlap v. Garnergreen2 sentences2005Dunlap By and Through Dunlap v. Garner, 127 Idaho 599, 604 , 903 P.2d 1296, 1301 (1994). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” McGilvray v. Farmers New World Life Ins. 2005Dunlap By and Through Dunlap v. Garner, 127 Idaho 599, 604 , 903 P.2d 1296, 1301 (1994). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” McGilvray v. Farmers New World Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Hake v. DeLanegreen2 sentences2001Hake v. DeLane, 117 Idaho 1058, 1062 , 793 P.2d 1230, 1234 (1990). 2001Hake v. DeLane, 117 Idaho 1058, 1062 , 793 P.2d 1230, 1234 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Roll v. City of Middletongreen2 sentences1995“Idaho case law discloses no requirement that there be a precipitating act of misconduct immediately prior to the termination of employment before a claimant may be denied unemployment benefits for employment-related misconduct.” Roll v. City of Middleton, 105 Idaho 22, 26 , 665 P.2d 721, 725 (1983). 1995“Idaho case law discloses no requirement that there be a precipitating act of misconduct immediately prior to the termination of employment before a claimant may be denied unemployment benefits for employment-related misconduct.” Roll v. City of Middleton, 105 Idaho 22, 26 , 665 P.2d 721, 725 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow
green
2 sentences2025In Clark, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court’s instruction on standard of care, stating: In the present case, Appellants objected to Instruction No. 18 because it states that “[t]he mere fact that an undesirable or unfortunate result occurs following medical care rendered by the Defendant does not, of itself, establish a breach of the standard of care.” Although in Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow, 110 Idaho 615 , 717 P.2d 1033 (1986), we found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a jury instruction that provided “the mere occurrence of a fire does n 2025In Clark, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court’s instruction on standard of care, stating: In the present case, Appellants objected to Instruction No. 18 because it states that “[t]he mere fact that an undesirable or unfortunate result occurs following medical care rendered by the Defendant does not, of itself, establish a breach of the standard of care.” Although in Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow, 110 Idaho 615 , 717 P.2d 1033 (1986), we found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a jury instruction that provided “the mere occurrence of a fire does n | 2 | 2002–2025 |
Clark v. Klein
green
2 sentences2025In Clark, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court’s instruction on standard of care, stating: In the present case, Appellants objected to Instruction No. 18 because it states that “[t]he mere fact that an undesirable or unfortunate result occurs following medical care rendered by the Defendant does not, of itself, establish a breach of the standard of care.” Although in Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow, 110 Idaho 615 , 717 P.2d 1033 (1986), we found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a jury instruction that provided “the mere occurrence of a fire does n 2025In Clark, the Supreme Court found no error in the district court’s instruction on standard of care, stating: In the present case, Appellants objected to Instruction No. 18 because it states that “[t]he mere fact that an undesirable or unfortunate result occurs following medical care rendered by the Defendant does not, of itself, establish a breach of the standard of care.” Although in Jerome Thriftway Drug, Inc. v. Winslow, 110 Idaho 615 , 717 P.2d 1033 (1986), we found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving a jury instruction that provided “the mere occurrence of a fire does n | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Thompson v. Pike
green
1 sentence2020“In the absence of any evidence presented by Pike that Pike had not breached the standard of practice, Thompson had no burden to respond with evidence supporting a breach of the standard of practice.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Schroeder v. Rose
green
2 sentences2014The Court of Appeals held that when a defendant raises a breach as a defense, he uses the plaintiffs breach “as a shield” rather than “a sword,” and does not need to “prove actual injury or intentional fraud.” Id. at 710 , 701 P.2d at 330 . 2014The Court of Appeals held that when a defendant raises a breach as a defense, he uses the plaintiffs breach “as a shield” rather than “a sword,” and does not need to “prove actual injury or intentional fraud.” Id. at 710 , 701 P.2d at 330 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Woodfield v. Board of Professional Discipline of the Idaho State Board of Medicine
green
2 sentences2002Woodfield, 127 Idaho at 749 , 905 P.2d at 1058 . 2002Woodfield, 127 Idaho at 749 , 905 P.2d at 1058 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Beal v. Mars Larsen Ranch Corp., Inc.
green
2 sentences1999Id. at 667-78 , 586 P.2d at 1383-84 . 1999Id. at 667-78 , 586 P.2d at 1383-84 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. LePage
green
2 sentences1989State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387 , 630 P.2d 674 (1981), cert. denied, LePage v. Idaho, 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981). 1989State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387 , 630 P.2d 674 (1981), cert. denied, LePage v. Idaho, 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Rooks v. United States
green
1 sentence1989State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387 , 630 P.2d 674 (1981), cert. denied, LePage v. Idaho, 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Perea v. United States
green
1 sentence1989State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387 , 630 P.2d 674 (1981), cert. denied, LePage v. Idaho, 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
LePage v. Idaho
green
1 sentence1989State v. LePage, 102 Idaho 387 , 630 P.2d 674 (1981), cert. denied, LePage v. Idaho, 454 U.S. 1057 , 102 S.Ct. 606 , 70 L.Ed.2d 595 (1981). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Junction Placer Mining Co. v. Reed
neutral
2 sentences1922Co. v. Reed, 28 Ida. 219 , 153 Pac. 564 .) A foreign corporation, which has not complied with the provisions of sees. 4772 and 4773, supra, may sue in the courts of this state to recover possession of personal property, where such suit is not based upon a breach or violation of a contract made in its name or for its use or benefit. 1922Co. v. Reed, 28 Ida. 219 , 153 Pac. 564 .) A foreign corporation, which has not complied with the provisions of sees. 4772 and 4773, supra, may sue in the courts of this state to recover possession of personal property, where such suit is not based upon a breach or violation of a contract made in its name or for its use or benefit. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Reynolds v. Crawfordsville First National Bank
green
1 sentence1915On this question see, also, Reynolds v. Crawfordsville etc. Bank, 112 U. S. 405, 412 , 5 Sup. Ct. 213, 28 L. ed. 733, 736, and the cases there cited. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
Katz v. Herrick
green
2 sentences1915In construing said section 2792, this court held in Katz v. Herrick, 12 Ida. 1 , 86 Pac. 873 , that a foreign corporation which fails to comply with the requirements of said section cannot maintain a suit in any of the courts of this state for a breach or violation of a contract entered into during the time the corporation failed to comply therewith. 1915In construing said section 2792, this court held in Katz v. Herrick, 12 Ida. 1 , 86 Pac. 873 , that a foreign corporation which fails to comply with the requirements of said section cannot maintain a suit in any of the courts of this state for a breach or violation of a contract entered into during the time the corporation failed to comply therewith. | 1 | 1915–1915 |
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.