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.
15 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2001This would amount to the administering of the oath by the court. ‘The competency of the person who reads the words of the oath to the witness and does the ministerial part of its administration is immaterial.’ [Taylor v. State, 59 Ga.App. 1 , 200 S.E. 237, 240 (1938) (citation omitted).] The practice of having a prosecutor administer the oath to infants, particularly in sensitive cases involving a child alleged to have been a victim of sexual abuse is particularly appropriate. 2001This would amount to the administering of the oath by the court. ‘The competency of the person who reads the words of the oath to the witness and does the ministerial part of its administration is immaterial.’ [Taylor v. State, 59 Ga.App. 1 , 200 S.E. 237, 240 (1938) (citation omitted).] The practice of having a prosecutor administer the oath to infants, particularly in sensitive cases involving a child alleged to have been a victim of sexual abuse is particularly appropriate. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Frostgreen2 sentences2026Super. at 337 (citing Frost, 158 N.J. at 83 ). "[T]he failure to object suggests that at the time defense counsel did not believe the remarks were prejudicial and the failure to object also deprives the court of an opportunity to take curative action." State v. Atkins, 405 N.J. 2025Ibid. (citing Frost, 158 N.J. at 83 (1999)). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Atkinsgreen1 sentence2026Super. at 337 (citing Frost, 158 N.J. at 83 ). "[T]he failure to object suggests that at the time defense counsel did not believe the remarks were prejudicial and the failure to object also deprives the court of an opportunity to take curative action." State v. Atkins, 405 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reddishgreen1 sentence2025In reviewing jury instructions, our jurisprudence recognizes that "[a]ppropriate and proper charges are essential for a fair trial.'" State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 613 (2004) (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 287 (1981)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greengreen1 sentence2025In reviewing jury instructions, our jurisprudence recognizes that "[a]ppropriate and proper charges are essential for a fair trial.'" State v. Reddish, 181 N.J. 553, 613 (2004) (quoting State v. Green, 86 N.J. 281, 287 (1981)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Butlergreen2 sentences1996See State v. Butler, 278 N.J.Super. 93, 101 , 650 A.2d 397 (App.Div.1994) (holding that absence following proper notice creates an inference of waiver). 1996See State v. Butler, 278 N.J.Super. 93, 101 , 650 A.2d 397 (App.Div.1994) (holding that absence following proper notice creates an inference of waiver). | 1 | 1 |
Kopec v. Kakowskigreen1 sentence1963Compare Kopec v. Kakowski, 34 N.J. 243 (1961). *176 The fact that the jury erred as to damages may support an inference that error was also committed on the issue of liability. | 1 | 1 |
State v. D'AMATOgreen1 sentence1957See State v. D'Amato, 26 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Atwater
green
2 sentences2026"Where there was no objection at the time, there is an inference that the defense did not view the summation as prejudicial in the context of the trial." Atwater, 400 N.J. 2012Frost, supra, 158 N.J. at 83 , 727 A.2d 1 ; Atwater, supra, 400 N.J.Super. at 337 , 947 A.2d 175 . 8 D After the judge ruled prior to trial that Mapquest directions calculating the time required to drive from Ramsey to Sibley, Louisiana, was inadmissible hearsay, two Bergen County detectives drove the route on August 19, 2009 — the same time of year defendant was alleged to have driven to Sibley three years earlier. | 2 | 2012–2026 |
State v. Daniels
green
1 sentence2025Ibid. (citing Frost, 158 N.J. at 83 (1999)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Ates
green
1 sentence2020Noting that "the failure to object [gave] rise to an inference that the defense did not view the remark as prejudicial," we explained that "[e]ven when an improper comment is made, . . . we must consider its context to determine whether the prejudicial effect warrants reversal." Ibid. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Sellars
green
2 sentences2005“The inference of a waiver is permissive, not mandatory.” State v. Sellars, 331 N.J.Super. 110, 120 , 751 A.2d 151 (App.Div.2000). 2005“The inference of a waiver is permissive, not mandatory.” State v. Sellars, 331 N.J.Super. 110, 120 , 751 A.2d 151 (App.Div.2000). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Clark v. Judge
green
1 sentence1968Generally, a settlor's intention must be ascertained from the terms of the entire trust taken as a whole." ( 84 N.J. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
State v. Lewis
neutral
1 sentence1968We recently considered the validity of N.J.S. 2 A :151-7 in State v. Lewis, 93 N.J. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Coll v. Sherry
green
1 sentence1963The inference, however, is overcome where "the issue of liability was clearly and properly decided against the defendant." Coll v. Sherry, supra ( 29 N.J., at page 177 ). | 1 | 1963–1963 |
State v. O'LEARY
green
1 sentence1957As suggested by Chief Justice *507 Weintraub in State v. O'Leary, supra , there is wide fluctuation in our decisional law as to the nature of the inference or presumption raised by silence in the face of incriminatory proofs. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Wines
green
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Skillman
green
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. DiBenedetto
neutral
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1957The latter alternative would seem to collide with the Kisik distinction, supra. And yet, although it was repeated in State v. Anderson, supra , that "The baleful effect of a defendant's failure to testify is measured by the proofs which go unanswered by the defendant under oath rather than by the mere failure per se to testify," it has been said in later cases that "Where the State presents direct evidence of a material fact which is prejudicial to the defendant and which is within his personal knowledge, then his failure to deny the fact justifies an inference unfavorable to the defendant. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Lutz
green
1 sentence1957Does such an abstention justify an inference or presumption bearing upon the criminatory facts, and entering into the evaluation of the proofs as a *504 whole, as suggested by State v. Lutz, 135 N.J.L. 603 ( Sup. Ct. 1947) (a circumstantial evidence case), consistent with the common law exemption from compulsory self-crimination ( State v. Friedman, supra ), or does it justify, without more, an inference of guilt of the basic charge? | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Kisik
green
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Friedman
green
1 sentence1957Does such an abstention justify an inference or presumption bearing upon the criminatory facts, and entering into the evaluation of the proofs as a *504 whole, as suggested by State v. Lutz, 135 N.J.L. 603 ( Sup. Ct. 1947) (a circumstantial evidence case), consistent with the common law exemption from compulsory self-crimination ( State v. Friedman, supra ), or does it justify, without more, an inference of guilt of the basic charge? | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Callahan
green
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Skillman
green
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Banusik
green
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Carroll
neutral
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Schilling
green
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Rubenstein
neutral
1 sentence1957This ranges from the suggestion of a permissible inference, to the actuality of a strong presumption, as may be noted from the variations in language used in the following cases: Parker v. State, supra ; State v Wines, supra ; State v. Banusik, 84 N.J.L. 640 ( E. & A. 1906); State v. Skillman, 76 N.J.L. 464 ( Sup. Ct. 1908), affirmed 77 N.J.L. 804 ( E. & A. 1909); State v. Callahan, supra ; State v. DiBenedetto, 82 N.J.L. 168 ( Sup. Ct. 1912), affirmed 83 N.J.L. 792 ( E. & A. 1912); State v. Shilling, 95 N.J.L. 145 ( E. & A. 1920); State v. Kisik, supra ; State v. Rubenstein, 5 N.J. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.