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.
18 Tennessee opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
New York v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2014In New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 21 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that “where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton.” See also State v. Jenkins, 81 S.W.3d 252, 264 (Tenn. Crim. 2012In New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 21 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that “where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton.” While the Court was reluctant to adopt a “per se” rule that would limit any and all evidence from a “chain of causation” that began with an illegal arrest, the Court reasoned: In light of these principles, we decline to apply the exclusionary rule in | 4 | 5 |
State of Tennessee v. Chester Lee Jenkinsgreen2 sentences2014In New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14, 21 (1990), the United States Supreme Court held that “where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton.” See also State v. Jenkins, 81 S.W.3d 252, 264 (Tenn. Crim. 2012Id. at 255 . | 2 | 3 |
Davis v. Shelby County Sheriff's Departmentgreen2 sentences2010See id. (citing City of Memphis Ordinance No. 1852); see also Davis, 278 S.W.3d at 263 . 2010As we explained above, because the City of Memphis is a home rule jurisdiction, the Commission is exempted from Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-9-114(a)(1)’s requirement that “contested case hearings by civil service boards . . . be conducted in conformity with contested case procedures under the [UAPA..]” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 27 - 9-114; Davis, 278 S.W.3d at 263-64 . | 1 | 2 |
Frazer v. Carrgreen2 sentences2025See generally Frazer v. Carr, 210 Tenn. 565, 569 , 360 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tenn. 1962). 2025See generally Frazer v. Carr, 210 Tenn. 565, 569 , 360 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tenn. 1962). | 1 | 1 |
County of Shelby v. McWhertergreen1 sentence2025See generally Cnty. of Shelby v. McWherter, 936 S.W.2d 923 , 933–34 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (“There is no constitutional provision that prohibits the Legislature from enacting laws which in some form or fashion are contrary to a local law set forth in a county’s home rule charter. | 1 | 1 |
MacOn v. Shelby County Government Civil Service Merit Boardgreen1 sentence2021See Macon, 309 S.W.3d at 511 (applying this rule despite the fact that “Shelby County is a home rule jurisdiction”). | 1 | 1 |
Arden v. Kozawagreen1 sentence2015The plain language of Tennessee Code Annotated section 27-9-114(a)(2) only exempts “municipal utilities boards or civil service boards of counties organized under a home rule charter form of government.” (Emphasis added.) “We presume that the Legislature intended each word in a statute to have a specific purpose and meaning.” Arden v. Kozawa, 466 S.W.3d 758, 764 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Cunningham v. Williamson Cnty. | 1 | 1 |
Bowman v. City of Moorheadgreen2 sentences2007For example, in Bowman v. City of Moorhead, 228 Minn. 35 , 36 N.W.2d 7 (1949), the Supreme Court of Minnesota determined that the home rule charter of a city had several irregularities, including the failure of publication in accordance with the state constitution. 2007For example, in Bowman v. City of Moorhead, 228 Minn. 35 , 36 N.W.2d 7 (1949), the Supreme Court of Minnesota determined that the home rule charter of a city had several irregularities, including the failure of publication in accordance with the state constitution. | 1 | 1 |
City of Knoxville v. Dossettgreen1 sentence2002Roach v. Dossett, 672 S.W.2d 193, 194 (Tenn. 1984) (noting that Knoxville is a home rule municipality). | 1 | 1 |
Henderson County v. Wallacegreen1 sentence1996Cummings, 130 Tenn. at 569, 172 S.W. at 290-91; Henderson County v. Wallace, 173 Tenn. (9 Beeler) 184, 189-90, 116 S.W.2d 1003, 1005 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
Virginia E. E. v. Alberto S. P.green2 sentences1982See Virginia E.E. v. Alberto S.P., 110 Misc.2d 448 , 440 N.Y.S.2d 979 (Fam.Ct.1981). 1982See Virginia E.E. v. Alberto S.P., 110 Misc.2d 448 , 440 N.Y.S.2d 979 (Fam.Ct.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Lawler v. McCanlessgreen2 sentences1975See Lawler v. McCanless, 220 Tenn. 342 , 417 S.W.2d 548, 550 (1967). 1975See Lawler v. McCanless, 220 Tenn. 342 , 417 S.W.2d 548, 550 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tidwell v. City of Memphis
green
2 sentences2015Marino also cited Tidwell v. City of Memphis, 193 S.W.3d 555 (Tenn. 2006), in which the supreme court held that a different board of the City of Memphis, its “On the Job Injury Appeals Panel,” is subject to the contested case procedures of the UAPA. 2015The City now claims that its Pension Board is not subject to the requirements for contested case hearings, regardless of the home rule issue, because its Pension Board “does not hear contested cases.” “A contested case is defined by the UAPA as „a proceeding . . . in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by any statute or constitutional provision to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for a hearing.‟” Tidwell, 193 S.W.3d at 558 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102 (3)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
County of Shelby v. Tompkins
green
1 sentence2009Davis, 278 S.W.3d at 263 ; Tompkins, 241 S.W.3d at 503-04 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Robinson v. Briley
green
1 sentence1996The County also contends that Robinson v. Briley, 213 Tenn. (17 McCanless) 418, 374 S.W.2d 382 (1963) supports its position that provisions of a charter may supersede a general law. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Bozeman v. Barker
green
2 sentences1991Thus, we reject the plaintiffs’ argument that this Court’s ruling in Bozeman v. Barker, 571 S.W.2d 279 (Tenn.1978), discussed below, is not controlling because the case did not involve a home rule municipality. 1991Thus, we reject the plaintiffs’ argument that this Court’s ruling in Bozeman v. Barker, 571 S.W.2d 279 (Tenn.1978), discussed below, is not controlling because the case did not involve a home rule municipality. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Fountain City Sanitary District v. Knox County Election Commission
green
2 sentences1978Fountain City Sanitary District v. Knox County Election Comm’n, 203 Tenn. 26 , 308 S.W.2d 482 (1957). 2 . 1978Fountain City Sanitary District v. Knox County Election Comm’n, 203 Tenn. 26 , 308 S.W.2d 482 (1957). 2 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.