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 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1960–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Myers v. Ridgegreen2 sentences2024Decisions to deny parole are generally “not appealable except to the extent that a constitutional or statutory violation has occurred.” Myers, 712 A.2d at 794 . 2019See Myers v. Ridge, 712 A.2d 791, 794 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (stating that decisions of the Board granting or denying parole are generally not appealable except to the extent a constitutional or statutory violation has occurred).5 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm. __________________________________ CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge 5 Malcomb asserts in the summary of argument and the conclusion sections of his appellate brief, but not in the argument section, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. | 3 | 4 |
Lawson v. PA. DEPT. OF CORR.green2 sentences2019If one of these interests is involved, the inmate is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Hill v. Dep’t of Corr., 64 A.3d 1159, 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (citation omitted); see Lawson v. Dep’t of Corr., 539 A.2d 69, 71 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (“It is clear then that where an inmate files an action in our original jurisdiction seeking review of Department action, our inquiry must be limited to a determination of whether a constitutional or statutory violation has occurred.”). 1998Lawson v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections, 114 Pa.Cmwlth. 573 , 539 A.2d 69 (1988). 1. | 1 | 2 |
Inmates of B-Block v. Jeffesgreen2 sentences2003See Martin v. Jeffes, 93 Pa.Cmwlth. 82 , 501 A.2d 308 (1985) (matters of prison management are uniquely the province of the executive and legislative branches of *613 the government); Inmates of B-Block v. Jeffes, 87 Pa.Cmwlth. 98 , 488 A.2d 569 (1984). 1988Martin; see also Inmates of B-Block v. Jeffes, 87 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 98 , 483 A.2d 569 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
Hill v. Department of Correctionsgreen1 sentence2019If one of these interests is involved, the inmate is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Hill v. Dep’t of Corr., 64 A.3d 1159, 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (citation omitted); see Lawson v. Dep’t of Corr., 539 A.2d 69, 71 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (“It is clear then that where an inmate files an action in our original jurisdiction seeking review of Department action, our inquiry must be limited to a determination of whether a constitutional or statutory violation has occurred.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Spanglergreen1 sentence2015See Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234, 240-41 (Pa. 2002) (explaining that “judicial enforcement of a regulation or policy governing the conduct of a criminal investigation” is inappropriate unless “compliance is mandated either by a statute or as a matter of constitutional compliance[.]”) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 749-50 (1979) (failure of Internal Revenue Service agent to follow agency regulations concerning electronic surveillance did not -7- J-S51032-15 require suppression of recordings because violation of regulations was not of constitutiona | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Caceresgreen1 sentence2015See Commonwealth v. Spangler, 809 A.2d 234, 240-41 (Pa. 2002) (explaining that “judicial enforcement of a regulation or policy governing the conduct of a criminal investigation” is inappropriate unless “compliance is mandated either by a statute or as a matter of constitutional compliance[.]”) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 749-50 (1979) (failure of Internal Revenue Service agent to follow agency regulations concerning electronic surveillance did not -7- J-S51032-15 require suppression of recordings because violation of regulations was not of constitutiona | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Jeffesgreen2 sentences2003See Martin v. Jeffes, 93 Pa.Cmwlth. 82 , 501 A.2d 308 (1985) (matters of prison management are uniquely the province of the executive and legislative branches of *613 the government); Inmates of B-Block v. Jeffes, 87 Pa.Cmwlth. 98 , 488 A.2d 569 (1984). 2003See Martin v. Jeffes, 93 Pa.Cmwlth. 82 , 501 A.2d 308 (1985) (matters of prison management are uniquely the province of the executive and legislative branches of *613 the government); Inmates of B-Block v. Jeffes, 87 Pa.Cmwlth. 98 , 488 A.2d 569 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
Henry J. Bennett, Jr. v. City of Slidell, Gerry Hinton, B.E. McDaniel Nunzio Giordano, and Patrick J. Berrigangreen2 sentences1994See also, Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762 (5th Cir.1984). 1994See also, Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762 (5th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1 |
American Totalisator Co. v. Seligmangreen2 sentences1979American Totalizator Co., Inc. v. Seligman, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 639, 644 , 367 A.2d 756, 758 (1976). 1979American Totalizator Co., Inc. v. Seligman, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 639, 644 , 367 A.2d 756, 758 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educationgreen2 sentences1977In testing the appropriateness of judicial remedies with respect to the myriad and complex problems of school desegregation we are guided by the Supreme Court’s rule in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971) that “'the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy. ’ ’ In fashioning remedies to correct unlawful segregation, the Court, through Mr. Chief Justice Burger, admonished courts of equity must balance the public interest and private needs, mindful that “ [rjemedial judicial authority does not put judges automatically in the shoes bf school 1977In testing the appropriateness of judicial remedies with respect to the myriad and complex problems of school desegregation we are guided by the Supreme Court’s rule in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971) that “'the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy. ’ ’ In fashioning remedies to correct unlawful segregation, the Court, through Mr. Chief Justice Burger, admonished courts of equity must balance the public interest and private needs, mindful that “ [rjemedial judicial authority does not put judges automatically in the shoes bf school | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Kelley v. Keisergreen2 sentences1960Kelley, District Attorney v. Keiser, 340 Pa. 59, 66, 67 , 16 A. 2d 307 , this Court stated: “The question as to when a person elected or appointed to office must satisfy a constitutional or statutory requirement relating to qualifications is quite confused, both in this state and elsewhere. 1960Kelley, District Attorney v. Keiser, 340 Pa. 59, 66, 67 , 16 A. 2d 307 , this Court stated: “The question as to when a person elected or appointed to office must satisfy a constitutional or statutory requirement relating to qualifications is quite confused, both in this state and elsewhere. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bronson v. Central Office Review Committee
green
1 sentence2021In the absence of such a violation, the Department’s disciplinary decision is not an adjudication subject to this Court’s review and therefore falls outside the scope of our original jurisdiction.9 Bronson, 721 A.2d at 359 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Jett v. Dallas Independent School District
green
2 sentences1994The Court further stated in Jett that “the identification of those officials whose decisions represent the official policy of the local governmental unit itself is a legal question to be resolved by the trial judge before the case is submitted to the jury____ [T]he trial judge must identify those officials or governmental bodies who speak with final policy-making authority for the local governmental actor concerning the action alleged to have caused the particular constitutional or statutory violation at issue.” Jett, 491 U.S. at 737 , 491 U.S. at 2724 . 1994The Court further stated in Jett that “the identification of those officials whose decisions represent the official policy of the local governmental unit itself is a legal question to be resolved by the trial judge before the case is submitted to the jury____ [T]he trial judge must identify those officials or governmental bodies who speak with final policy-making authority for the local governmental actor concerning the action alleged to have caused the particular constitutional or statutory violation at issue.” Jett, 491 U.S. at 737 , 491 U.S. at 2724 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.