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 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2016Part (b) of the Bums test requires that the elements of the lesser-included offense be included in the elements of the charged offense, except to the extent that the lesser-included offense “contains a statutory element or elements establishing (1) a different mental state indicating a lesser kind of culpability; and/or (2) a less serious risk of harm to the person, property or public interest.” Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 466-67 . 2016Part (b) of the Bums test requires that the elements of the lesser-included offense be included in the elements of the charged offense, except to the extent that the lesser-included offense “contains a statutory element or elements establishing (1) a different mental state indicating a lesser kind of culpability; and/or (2) a less serious risk of harm to the person, property or public interest.” Burns, 6 S.W.3d at 466-67 . | 7 | 13 |
State v. Elygreen2 sentences2012However, “part (c) of the Bums test, ... applies ‘to situations in which a defendant attempts to commit ... either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no proof exists of the completion of the crime.’ ” State v. Marcum, 109 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tenn.2003) (quoting State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710, 719 (Tenn.2001)) (emphasis added). 2012However, “part (c) of the Bums test, ... applies ‘to situations in which a defendant attempts to commit ... either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no proof exists of the completion of the crime.’ ” State v. Marcum, 109 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tenn.2003) (quoting State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710, 719 (Tenn.2001)) (emphasis added). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Rushgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Rush, 50 S.W.3d at 429 n.4. 2016See, e.g., Rush, 50 S.W.3d at 429 n.4. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Marcumgreen2 sentences2012However, “part (c) of the Bums test, ... applies ‘to situations in which a defendant attempts to commit ... either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no proof exists of the completion of the crime.’ ” State v. Marcum, 109 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tenn.2003) (quoting State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710, 719 (Tenn.2001)) (emphasis added). 2012However, “part (c) of the Bums test, ... applies ‘to situations in which a defendant attempts to commit ... either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no proof exists of the completion of the crime.’ ” State v. Marcum, 109 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tenn.2003) (quoting State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710, 719 (Tenn.2001)) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bowlesgreen2 sentences2002In proving the greater offense the State necessarily has proven the lesser offense because all of the statutory elements of the lesser offense are included in the greater. 69 S.W.3d at 188 (citing Bowles, 52 S.W.3d at 80 ). 2002In proving the greater offense the State necessarily has proven the lesser offense because all of the statutory elements of the lesser offense are included in the greater. 69 S.W.3d at 188 (citing Bowles, 52 S.W.3d at 80 ). | 1 | 2 |
State of Tennessee v. Mark Anthony McNackgreen2 sentences2016When engaging in statutory interpretation, “well-defined precepts apply.” State v. McNack, 356 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tenn. 2011). 2016When engaging in statutory interpretation, “well-defined precepts apply.” State v. McNack, 356 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tenn. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Terrance N. CARTER v. Rickey BELLgreen2 sentences2016“When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must apply its plain meaning in its normal and accepted use, without a forced interpretation that would extend the meaning of the language[,] and ... enforce the language without reference to the broader statutory intent, legislative history, or other sources.” Carter, 279 S.W.3d at 564 (citations omitted). a, Abrogation of Common Law Had the General Assembly intended to abrogate part (b) of the Bums test as interpreted by the Court of Criminal Appeals, it is clear that the legislature would *270 have significantly changed the common law of 2016“When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must apply its plain meaning in its normal and accepted use, without a forced interpretation that would extend the meaning of the language[,] and ... enforce the language without reference to the broader statutory intent, legislative history, or other sources.” Carter, 279 S.W.3d at 564 (citations omitted). a, Abrogation of Common Law Had the General Assembly intended to abrogate part (b) of the Bums test as interpreted by the Court of Criminal Appeals, it is clear that the legislature would *270 have significantly changed the common law of | 1 | 1 |
State of Tennessee v. Broderick Devonte Faynegreen2 sentences2016“Significantly, the statutory definition set out in section 40-18-110(f) does not include part (b) of the Bums test.” State v. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d 362 , 368 n.5 (Tenn. 2014). 2016“Significantly, the statutory definition set out in section 40-18-110(f) does not include part (b) of the Bums test.” State v. Fayne, 451 S.W.3d 362 , 368 n.5 (Tenn. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2006However, part (c) of the Bums test is limited to “ ‘situations in which a defendant attempts to commit, or solicits another to commit, either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no proof exists of the completion of the crime.’ ” State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469, 487 (Tenn.2004) (quoting State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710, 717 (Tenn.2001)).' As in these cases, the evidence in the instant case established either the completed offense of murder or the defendants’ claim of innocence. 2006However, part (c) of the Bums test is limited to “ ‘situations in which a defendant attempts to commit, or solicits another to commit, either the crime charged or a lesser-included offense, but no proof exists of the completion of the crime.’ ” State v. Robinson, 146 S.W.3d 469, 487 (Tenn.2004) (quoting State v. Ely, 48 S.W.3d 710, 717 (Tenn.2001)).' As in these cases, the evidence in the instant case established either the completed offense of murder or the defendants’ claim of innocence. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2001See State v. Canco, 968 S.W.2d 280, 286 (Tenn.1998) (recognizing that “not all rapes are committed for the purpose of pleasure or excitement”); see also State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31, 34-35 (Tenn. 1993). 2001See State v. Canco, 968 S.W.2d 280, 286 (Tenn.1998) (recognizing that “not all rapes are committed for the purpose of pleasure or excitement”); see also State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31, 34-35 (Tenn. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Caricogreen2 sentences2001See State v. Canco, 968 S.W.2d 280, 286 (Tenn.1998) (recognizing that “not all rapes are committed for the purpose of pleasure or excitement”); see also State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31, 34-35 (Tenn. 1993). 2001See State v. Canco, 968 S.W.2d 280, 286 (Tenn.1998) (recognizing that “not all rapes are committed for the purpose of pleasure or excitement”); see also State v. Adams, 864 S.W.2d 31, 34-35 (Tenn. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Swindlegreen2 sentences2001Here, in reviewing the count charging rape, the question is whether the culpability or harm inherent in an “intentional sexual touching for the purpose of sexual arousal” is less than that of an “intentional, knowing, or reckless sexual penetration.” Cf. State v. Swindle, 30 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tenn.2000)(comparing the offenses of aggravated sexual battery and misdemeanor assault under part (b) of the Bums test). 2001Here, in reviewing the count charging rape, the question is whether the culpability or harm inherent in an “intentional sexual touching for the purpose of sexual arousal” is less than that of an “intentional, knowing, or reckless sexual penetration.” Cf. State v. Swindle, 30 S.W.3d 289, 293 (Tenn.2000)(comparing the offenses of aggravated sexual battery and misdemeanor assault under part (b) of the Bums test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2002In proving the greater offense the State necessarily has proven the lesser offense because all of the statutory elements of the lesser offense are included in the greater. 69 S.W.3d at 188 (citing Bowles, 52 S.W.3d at 80 ). 2002In proving the greater offense the State necessarily has proven the lesser offense because all of the statutory elements of the lesser offense are included in the greater. 69 S.W.3d at 188 (citing Bowles, 52 S.W.3d at 80 ). | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Elkins
green
2 sentences2016Although this Court has twice clarified that aggravated sexual battery is a lesser* included offense of rape of a child, Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 237 ; Elkins, 83 S.W.3d at 713 , it appears that we have done so without engaging in a thorough analysis of Bums part (b). 2016Although this Court has twice clarified that aggravated sexual battery is a lesser* included offense of rape of a child, Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 237 ; Elkins, 83 S.W.3d at 713 , it appears that we have done so without engaging in a thorough analysis of Bums part (b). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences2016Although this Court has twice clarified that aggravated sexual battery is a lesser* included offense of rape of a child, Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 237 ; Elkins, 83 S.W.3d at 713 , it appears that we have done so without engaging in a thorough analysis of Bums part (b). 2016Although this Court has twice clarified that aggravated sexual battery is a lesser* included offense of rape of a child, Evans, 108 S.W.3d at 237 ; Elkins, 83 S.W.3d at 713 , it appears that we have done so without engaging in a thorough analysis of Bums part (b). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Flemming
green
2 sentences2002Establishing proof sufficient to convict under the greater offense will not necessarily prove the lesser offenses, including facilitation, enumerated in part (c) of the test. 9 The defendant further relies upon Allen and Flemming, 19 S.W.3d 195 (Tenn.2000), for the proposition that the error was not harmless because his involvement in the robbery and attempted robbery was contested at trial. 2002Establishing proof sufficient to convict under the greater offense will not necessarily prove the lesser offenses, including facilitation, enumerated in part (c) of the test. 9 The defendant further relies upon Allen and Flemming, 19 S.W.3d 195 (Tenn.2000), for the proposition that the error was not harmless because his involvement in the robbery and attempted robbery was contested at trial. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Howard v. State
green
2 sentences2001This same result would be reached under Howard v. State, 578 S.W.2d 83 (Tenn.1979), which set forth the statutory elements test incorporated into part (a) of the Bums test. 5 . 2001This same result would be reached under Howard v. State, 578 S.W.2d 83 (Tenn.1979), which set forth the statutory elements test incorporated into part (a) of the Bums test. 5 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.