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.
14 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc.green2 sentences2024See Deaton v. Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-043, ¶ 31 , 135 N.M. 423 , 89 P.3d 672 ; see also Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 1996-NMCA-009 , ¶ 13, 121 N.M. 258 , 910 P.2d 334 (“A party who has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling should hardly be heard to complain about those shortcomings on appeal.”). 2024See Deaton v. Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-043, ¶ 31 , 135 N.M. 423 , 89 P.3d 672 ; see also Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 1996-NMCA-009 , ¶ 13, 121 N.M. 258 , 910 P.2d 334 (“A party who has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling should hardly be heard to complain about those shortcomings on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
Deaton v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2024See Deaton v. Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-043, ¶ 31 , 135 N.M. 423 , 89 P.3d 672 ; see also Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 1996-NMCA-009 , ¶ 13, 121 N.M. 258 , 910 P.2d 334 (“A party who has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling should hardly be heard to complain about those shortcomings on appeal.”). 2024See Deaton v. Gutierrez, 2004-NMCA-043, ¶ 31 , 135 N.M. 423 , 89 P.3d 672 ; see also Cordova v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 1996-NMCA-009 , ¶ 13, 121 N.M. 258 , 910 P.2d 334 (“A party who has contributed, at least in part, to perceived shortcomings in a trial court’s ruling should hardly be heard to complain about those shortcomings on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
Elane Photography, LLC v. Willockgreen1 sentence2024See Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70 , 309 P.3d 53 . | 1 | 1 |
New Mexico Department of Health v. Comptongreen1 sentence2023See id.; accord Compton, 2001-NMSC-032 , ¶ 12 4 (recognizing “the severe curtailment of liberty which involuntary commitment in a 5 mental institution can entail” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torresgreen1 sentence2020See Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 10 . | 1 | 1 |
Bank of Santa Fe v. Honey Boy Haven, Inc.green2 sentences2007See, e.g., Bank of Santa Fe v. Honey Boy Haven, Inc., 106 N.M. 584, 587 , 746 P.2d 1116, 1119 (1987) (stating that, “[r]atification of the action of a corporate officer for which antecedent authority might not have existed may be either express or implied, and may arise through the corporation’s acquiescence in or recognition of its officer’s unauthorized act, or by actions of the corporation representing an acceptance or adoption of the unauthorized act”); see also Grandi v. LeSage, 74 N.M. 799, 810 , 399 P.2d 285 (1965) (“The substance of the doctrine [of ratification] is confirmation after 2007See, e.g., Bank of Santa Fe v. Honey Boy Haven, Inc., 106 N.M. 584, 587 , 746 P.2d 1116, 1119 (1987) (stating that, “[r]atification of the action of a corporate officer for which antecedent authority might not have existed may be either express or implied, and may arise through the corporation’s acquiescence in or recognition of its officer’s unauthorized act, or by actions of the corporation representing an acceptance or adoption of the unauthorized act”); see also Grandi v. LeSage, 74 N.M. 799, 810 , 399 P.2d 285 (1965) (“The substance of the doctrine [of ratification] is confirmation after | 1 | 1 |
Grandi v. LeSagegreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Bank of Santa Fe v. Honey Boy Haven, Inc., 106 N.M. 584, 587 , 746 P.2d 1116, 1119 (1987) (stating that, “[r]atification of the action of a corporate officer for which antecedent authority might not have existed may be either express or implied, and may arise through the corporation’s acquiescence in or recognition of its officer’s unauthorized act, or by actions of the corporation representing an acceptance or adoption of the unauthorized act”); see also Grandi v. LeSage, 74 N.M. 799, 810 , 399 P.2d 285 (1965) (“The substance of the doctrine [of ratification] is confirmation after 2007See, e.g., Bank of Santa Fe v. Honey Boy Haven, Inc., 106 N.M. 584, 587 , 746 P.2d 1116, 1119 (1987) (stating that, “[r]atification of the action of a corporate officer for which antecedent authority might not have existed may be either express or implied, and may arise through the corporation’s acquiescence in or recognition of its officer’s unauthorized act, or by actions of the corporation representing an acceptance or adoption of the unauthorized act”); see also Grandi v. LeSage, 74 N.M. 799, 810 , 399 P.2d 285 (1965) (“The substance of the doctrine [of ratification] is confirmation after | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences2012Id. 2012Id. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Dunn v. Hudson River Electric Co.
green
2 sentences1936The substance of the rule declared in these cases was expressed by Judge Hiscock in Re Dunn, supra, 205 N.Y. 398 , 98 N.E. 914 , Ann. 1936The substance of the rule declared in these cases was expressed by Judge Hiscock in Re Dunn, supra, 205 N.Y. 398 , 98 N.E. 914 , Ann. | 2 | 1936–1936 |
Lopez v. Devon Energy Prod. Co.
green
2 sentences2024Co., L.P., 2020-NMCA-033, ¶ 39 , 468 P.3d 887 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {13} Here, Defendant does not provide evidence of prejudice—beyond mere assertion thereof—and we struggle to find any demonstration of prejudice considering (1) the district court’s repeated clarifications that Plaintiff had the burden of proof as to causation, which we perceive to have effectively conveyed the substance of the instruction; and (2) Defendant’s apparent failures to object or restate an objection to the instruction, submit appropriate corrections to the instruction as prompted by the 2024Co., L.P., 2020-NMCA-033, ¶ 39 , 468 P.3d 887 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {13} Here, Defendant does not provide evidence of prejudice—beyond mere assertion thereof—and we struggle to find any demonstration of prejudice considering (1) the district court’s repeated clarifications that Plaintiff had the burden of proof as to causation, which we perceive to have effectively conveyed the substance of the instruction; and (2) Defendant’s apparent failures to object or restate an objection to the instruction, submit appropriate corrections to the instruction as prompted by the | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Birdo v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2023Birdo v. Rodriguez, 1972- NMSC-062, ¶¶ 6-7, 84 N.M. 207 , 501 P.2d 195 (looking to the substance not the form or title of a claim to determine if requested relief can be granted). 2023Birdo v. Rodriguez, 1972- NMSC-062, ¶¶ 6-7, 84 N.M. 207 , 501 P.2d 195 (looking to the substance not the form or title of a claim to determine if requested relief can be granted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Chambers v. Mississippi
green
1 sentence2020Even if these preliminary requirements had been met, however, Defendant still fails to establish that the district court’s limiting of testimony warrants reversal, as she asserts it does. {43} Concerning Defendant’s first argument, regarding the limitation on her own testimony, her only citation to authority in support of the substance of her claim is Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1972). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Folk
green
2 sentences1986With respect to the insanity defense, as the supreme court has indicated in State v. Folk, 56 N.M. 583 , 247 P.2d 165 (1952), the trial court has some discretion in evaluating the substance of the claim. 1986With respect to the insanity defense, as the supreme court has indicated in State v. Folk, 56 N.M. 583 , 247 P.2d 165 (1952), the trial court has some discretion in evaluating the substance of the claim. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Ute Park Summer Homes Ass'n v. Maxwell Land Grant Co.
green
2 sentences1978Co., 83 N.M. 558 , 494 P.2d 971 (1972) this Court stated that the doctrine of the law of the case has long been recognized in New Mexico, describing the substance of the doctrine to be: If an appellate court has considered and passed upon a question of law and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal question so resolved will not be determined in a different manner on a subsequent appeal. 1978Co., 83 N.M. 558 , 494 P.2d 971 (1972) this Court stated that the doctrine of the law of the case has long been recognized in New Mexico, describing the substance of the doctrine to be: If an appellate court has considered and passed upon a question of law and remanded the case for further proceedings, the legal question so resolved will not be determined in a different manner on a subsequent appeal. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Muench v. Heinemann
neutral
2 sentences1922As stated in Muench v. Heinemann, 119 Wis. 441 , 96 N. W. 800 , in the language of Mr. Justice Winslow, ‘the substance of the requirement’ as to proceedings in the trial court for judgment for one ¡party, when taking the verdict at its face the judgment Should and does go the other way, to entitle such party upon prevailing on appeal to a direction from this to the lower court to render judgment in his favor ‘is that the appellant shall move for judgment after the verdict is. in, so that the trial court may have an opportunity to pass on the question.’ The real philosophy of that, it seems, is 1922As stated in Muench v. Heinemann, 119 Wis. 441 , 96 N. W. 800 , in the language of Mr. Justice Winslow, ‘the substance of the requirement’ as to proceedings in the trial court for judgment for one ¡party, when taking the verdict at its face the judgment Should and does go the other way, to entitle such party upon prevailing on appeal to a direction from this to the lower court to render judgment in his favor ‘is that the appellant shall move for judgment after the verdict is. in, so that the trial court may have an opportunity to pass on the question.’ The real philosophy of that, it seems, is | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.