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. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant — emailed to you with setup instructions, and always available under that icon.
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.
14 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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. Hurleygreen2 sentences2026In order to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal once a defendant elects to present evidence on his behalf, the defendant must renew his Crim.R. 29 motion at the close of all the evidence.” State v. Hurley, 2014-Ohio-2716, ¶ 37 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Edwards, 2004- Ohio-4015, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). 2025In order to preserve a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal once a defendant elects to present evidence on his behalf, the defendant must renew his Crim.R. 29 motion at the close of all the evidence.” State v. Hurley, 2014-Ohio-2716, ¶ 37 (3d Dist.), quoting State v. Edwards, 2004- Ohio-4015, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cookgreen2 sentences2022See also State v. Cook, 35 Ohio App.3d 20 , 519 N.E.2d 419 , paragraph three of the syllabus (12th Dist.1987)(Crim.R. 7(D) primarily for defendant’s protection and prohibits amendments that change the nature or identity of the charged crime so the accused can be aware of the charges and can prepare his defense accordingly.) {¶16} The Eighth District has also held that a defendant waives any challenge to an indictment when he is in the courtroom, did not object to the amendment prior to trial, and indicated to the court that he understood the proceedings. 2022See also State v. Cook, 35 Ohio App.3d 20 , 519 N.E.2d 419 , paragraph three of the syllabus (12th Dist.1987)(Crim.R. 7(D) primarily for defendant’s protection and prohibits amendments that change the nature or identity of the charged crime so the accused can be aware of the charges and can prepare his defense accordingly.) {¶16} The Eighth District has also held that a defendant waives any challenge to an indictment when he is in the courtroom, did not object to the amendment prior to trial, and indicated to the court that he understood the proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
Barlow v. Sipesgreen1 sentence2003See State v. Jones (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 335, 346 , 744 N.E.2d 1 .163; State v. Carter (1992) 64 Ohio St.3d 218, 223 , 594 N.E.2d 595 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2003See State v. Jones (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 335, 346 , 744 N.E.2d 1 .163; State v. Carter (1992) 64 Ohio St.3d 218, 223 , 594 N.E.2d 595 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2000See Crim.R. 12(B)(3); see, also, Campbell , 69 Ohio St.3d at 44 ; State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 429 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Dayton v. Rogers
green
2 sentences2022In the past, this court and numerous other Ohio appellate courts, relying primarily upon State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 25 , 535 N.E.2d 1351 and Dayton v. Rogers (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 398 N.E.2d 781 , have held that if a criminal [Cite as State v. King, 2022-Ohio-4616 .] defendant fails to timely file a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, the defendant waives any error, absent plain error, as to sufficiency of the evidence. 2022In the past, this court and numerous other Ohio appellate courts, relying primarily upon State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 25 , 535 N.E.2d 1351 and Dayton v. Rogers (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 398 N.E.2d 781 , have held that if a criminal [Cite as State v. King, 2022-Ohio-4616 .] defendant fails to timely file a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, the defendant waives any error, absent plain error, as to sufficiency of the evidence. | 6 | 2000–2022 |
State v. Roe
green
2 sentences2022In the past, this court and numerous other Ohio appellate courts, relying primarily upon State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 25 , 535 N.E.2d 1351 and Dayton v. Rogers (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 398 N.E.2d 781 , have held that if a criminal [Cite as State v. King, 2022-Ohio-4616 .] defendant fails to timely file a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, the defendant waives any error, absent plain error, as to sufficiency of the evidence. 2022In the past, this court and numerous other Ohio appellate courts, relying primarily upon State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 25 , 535 N.E.2d 1351 and Dayton v. Rogers (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 398 N.E.2d 781 , have held that if a criminal [Cite as State v. King, 2022-Ohio-4616 .] defendant fails to timely file a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, the defendant waives any error, absent plain error, as to sufficiency of the evidence. | 2 | 2003–2022 |
State v. Lazzaro
green
2 sentences2003Dayton v. Rogers (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 162 , 163 , overruled on other grounds, 76 Ohio St.3d 261 (1996). {¶ 5} In the instant case, Mr. Lyons failed to renew his Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal after presenting his defense. 2000Dayton v. Rogers (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 162 , 163 , overruled on other grounds, State v. Lazzaro (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 261 . | 2 | 2000–2003 |
State v. King
green
1 sentence2022In the past, this court and numerous other Ohio appellate courts, relying primarily upon State v. Roe (1989), 41 Ohio St.3d 18, 25 , 535 N.E.2d 1351 and Dayton v. Rogers (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 162, 163 , 398 N.E.2d 781 , have held that if a criminal [Cite as State v. King, 2022-Ohio-4616 .] defendant fails to timely file a Crim.R. 29 motion for acquittal, the defendant waives any error, absent plain error, as to sufficiency of the evidence. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Williamitis, Unpublished Decision (11-19-2004)
neutral
1 sentence2013No. 20508, 2004-Ohio-6234 (a defendant waives any claim of error regarding his failure to receive a bill of particulars by proceeding to trial without a bill of particulars or a request for a continuance); State v. Richards, 5th Dist. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Gray, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003)
neutral
1 sentence2008No. C-030132, 2003-Ohio-5837 , at ¶ 1 . {¶ 13} However, Mr. Tisdale is not without remedy regarding his ineffective assistance of counsel allegations. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2007State v. Brown (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 674 , 685 , 630 N.E.2d 397 . 2007State v. Brown (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 674 , 685 , 630 N.E.2d 397 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Carter
green
2 sentences2003See State v. Jones (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 335, 346 , 744 N.E.2d 1 .163; State v. Carter (1992) 64 Ohio St.3d 218, 223 , 594 N.E.2d 595 . 2003See State v. Jones (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 335, 346 , 744 N.E.2d 1 .163; State v. Carter (1992) 64 Ohio St.3d 218, 223 , 594 N.E.2d 595 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. French
green
2 sentences2001State v. Williamson (June 14, 2000), Ross App. No. 99CA2473, unreported, 2000 WL 807281 (citing Crim.R. 12(B)(3) State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446 , 650 N.E.2d 887 ). 2001State v. Williamson (June 14, 2000), Ross App. No. 99CA2473, unreported, 2000 WL 807281 (citing Crim.R. 12(B)(3) State v. French (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 446 , 650 N.E.2d 887 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Sibert
green
1 sentence2000See Crim.R. 12(B)(3); see, also, Campbell , 69 Ohio St.3d at 44 ; State v. Sibert (1994), 98 Ohio App.3d 412 , 429 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.