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.
12 California opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.green2 sentences2024(See Reynolds, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 728 [the excessiveness factors are “(1) the defendant’s culpability; (2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and (4) the defendant’s ability to pay”].) This leaves the first and third factors, defendants’ culpability and penalties imposed in similar statutes. 2024(See Reynolds, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 728 [the excessiveness factors are “(1) the defendant’s culpability; (2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and (4) the defendant’s ability to pay”].) This leaves the first and third factors, defendants’ culpability and penalties imposed in similar statutes. | 2 | 2 |
Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage Districtgreen2 sentences2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L 2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L | 2 | 2 |
Hill v. City of Long Beachgreen2 sentences2014Discussion This appeal is timely and properly brought as to the February 2012 order sustaining the demurrer (see Hill v. City of Long Beach (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1684, 1695 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 125 ] [order sustaining demurrer is nonappealable, but may be reviewed on appeal of subsequent order of dismissal or judgment]) and the July 2012 order denying Reynolds’s motion for reconsideration (Code Civ. 2014Discussion This appeal is timely and properly brought as to the February 2012 order sustaining the demurrer (see Hill v. City of Long Beach (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1684, 1695 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 125 ] [order sustaining demurrer is nonappealable, but may be reviewed on appeal of subsequent order of dismissal or judgment]) and the July 2012 order denying Reynolds’s motion for reconsideration (Code Civ. | 1 | 1 |
Blowers v. Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co.green1 sentence2013Co., Inc. (D.C.N.Y. 1981) 526 F.Supp. 1324, 1327 ["The amount of time spent by defendants' attorneys on a particular matter may have significant bearing on the 6 Over the People's objection, the trial court granted Reynolds's motion to seal all information pertaining to the hourly rates of its attorneys and the amount of fees it incurred. | 1 | 1 |
Schaffter v. Creative Capital Leasing Group, LLCgreen2 sentences2010Reynolds is not the arbiter of its conduct, and “[e]xpert opinion on contract interpretation is usually inadmissible.” (Schaffler v. Creative Capital Leasing Group, LLC (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 745, 752, fn. 2 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 19 ].) Reynolds also submits that course of performance evidence shows the Camel Farm advertising images are not “cartoons” within the meaning of the MSA. 2010Reynolds is not the arbiter of its conduct, and “[e]xpert opinion on contract interpretation is usually inadmissible.” (Schaffler v. Creative Capital Leasing Group, LLC (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 745, 752, fn. 2 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 19 ].) Reynolds also submits that course of performance evidence shows the Camel Farm advertising images are not “cartoons” within the meaning of the MSA. | 1 | 1 |
People Ex Rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.green2 sentences2010Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1267 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 ].) Further, while the opinions of Reynolds’s advertising agency, its employees and an expert witness on the MSA’s definition of “cartoon” may have been relevant to the issue of whether Reynolds’s violation of the ban on cartoons was intentional, the interpretation of contractual language is a legal matter for the court. 2010Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1267 [ 11 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 ].) Further, while the opinions of Reynolds’s advertising agency, its employees and an expert witness on the MSA’s definition of “cartoon” may have been relevant to the issue of whether Reynolds’s violation of the ban on cartoons was intentional, the interpretation of contractual language is a legal matter for the court. | 1 | 1 |
Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Comm'rs for Port of New Orleansgreen2 sentences2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L 2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L | 1 | 1 |
Board of Governors v. First Lincolnwood Corp.green2 sentences2002(Salyer, supra, at p. 732 [98 S.Ct. at p. 1231] [“in the type of special district we now have before us, the question ... is not whether ... we would have lumped [all potential voters] together had we been enacting the statute in question, but instead whether ‘if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify’ California’s decision to deny the franchise to lessees while granting it to landowners”].) That lenient standard is met here for reasons that are obvious. 2002(Salyer, supra, at p. 732 [98 S.Ct. at p. 1231] [“in the type of special district we now have before us, the question ... is not whether ... we would have lumped [all potential voters] together had we been enacting the statute in question, but instead whether ‘if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify’ California’s decision to deny the franchise to lessees while granting it to landowners”].) That lenient standard is met here for reasons that are obvious. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blanchard v. Bergeron
green
1 sentence2020(Blanchard v. Bergeron (1989) 489 U.S. 87, 96 , italics added.) The court set the reasonable hourly rates based on its over forty years of experience in the legal field in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties and after a careful review of the issues in this matter and the pre-settlement motions; it rejected Reynolds’s request for fees at a higher rate charged in other jurisdictions because there had been no showing that hiring of local counsel was impractical. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Reynolds v. Bement
green
2 sentences2017As Reynolds makes clear, its rule regarding the interpretation of "employees" was a specific application of the general rule that we do not presume the Legislature intends to abrogate the common law unless it " ' " 'clearly and unequivocally' " ' " says so. ( Reynolds , supra , 36 Cal.4th at p. 1086 , 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 483 , 116 P.3d 1162 .) The Reynolds rule therefore applies when the common law test of employment would have been appropriate in the same context at common law. 2017As Reynolds makes clear, its rule regarding the interpretation of "employees" was a specific application of the general rule that we do not presume the Legislature intends to abrogate the common law unless it " ' " 'clearly and unequivocally' " ' " says so. ( Reynolds , supra , 36 Cal.4th at p. 1086 , 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 483 , 116 P.3d 1162 .) The Reynolds rule therefore applies when the common law test of employment would have been appropriate in the same context at common law. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. David Thai, Lan Ngoc Tran, Minh Do, Jimmy Nguyen, Hoang Huy Ngo, Quang Van Nguyen, and Lv Hong, A/K/A \l.v. Hong\""
green
2 sentences2007It cited Carlson for the proposition that "`[t]he Sixth Amendment does not stand as a shield to protect the accused from his own misconduct or chicanery.'" ( Rouco, at p. 995.) In 1993, the District Court of the District of Columbia noted in United States v. White (D.D.C.1993) 838 F.Supp. 618 , that the Reynolds rule that a defendant cannot assert his confrontation right if he has procured the witness's absence "has been applied by the courts in Aguiar, Potamitis, Steele, Thevis, Balano, and Carlson." (White, at p. 620 and fn. 3.) It held that if the defendant was responsible for the absence o 2007It cited Carlson for the proposition that "`[t]he Sixth Amendment does not stand as a shield to protect the accused from his own misconduct or chicanery.'" ( Rouco, at p. 995.) In 1993, the District Court of the District of Columbia noted in United States v. White (D.D.C.1993) 838 F.Supp. 618 , that the Reynolds rule that a defendant cannot assert his confrontation right if he has procured the witness's absence "has been applied by the courts in Aguiar, Potamitis, Steele, Thevis, Balano, and Carlson." (White, at p. 620 and fn. 3.) It held that if the defendant was responsible for the absence o | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. White
green
2 sentences2007It cited Carlson for the proposition that "`[t]he Sixth Amendment does not stand as a shield to protect the accused from his own misconduct or chicanery.'" ( Rouco, at p. 995.) In 1993, the District Court of the District of Columbia noted in United States v. White (D.D.C.1993) 838 F.Supp. 618 , that the Reynolds rule that a defendant cannot assert his confrontation right if he has procured the witness's absence "has been applied by the courts in Aguiar, Potamitis, Steele, Thevis, Balano, and Carlson." (White, at p. 620 and fn. 3.) It held that if the defendant was responsible for the absence o 2007It cited Carlson for the proposition that "`[t]he Sixth Amendment does not stand as a shield to protect the accused from his own misconduct or chicanery.'" ( Rouco, at p. 995.) In 1993, the District Court of the District of Columbia noted in United States v. White (D.D.C.1993) 838 F.Supp. 618 , that the Reynolds rule that a defendant cannot assert his confrontation right if he has procured the witness's absence "has been applied by the courts in Aguiar, Potamitis, Steele, Thevis, Balano, and Carlson." (White, at p. 620 and fn. 3.) It held that if the defendant was responsible for the absence o | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Houlihan
green
2 sentences2007The relevant issue is the [defendant's participation in [the deceased witness's] murder." Apparently in agreement with Thai is the next case, United States v. Houlihan (D.Mass.1995) 887 F.Supp. 352 , upon which defendant here heavily relies. 2007The relevant issue is the [defendant's participation in [the deceased witness's] murder." Apparently in agreement with Thai is the next case, United States v. Houlihan (D.Mass.1995) 887 F.Supp. 352 , upon which defendant here heavily relies. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Miller
green
2 sentences2007It cited Carlson for the proposition that "`[t]he Sixth Amendment does not stand as a shield to protect the accused from his own misconduct or chicanery.'" ( Rouco, at p. 995.) In 1993, the District Court of the District of Columbia noted in United States v. White (D.D.C.1993) 838 F.Supp. 618 , that the Reynolds rule that a defendant cannot assert his confrontation right if he has procured the witness's absence "has been applied by the courts in Aguiar, Potamitis, Steele, Thevis, Balano, and Carlson." (White, at p. 620 and fn. 3.) It held that if the defendant was responsible for the absence o 2007It cited Carlson for the proposition that "`[t]he Sixth Amendment does not stand as a shield to protect the accused from his own misconduct or chicanery.'" ( Rouco, at p. 995.) In 1993, the District Court of the District of Columbia noted in United States v. White (D.D.C.1993) 838 F.Supp. 618 , that the Reynolds rule that a defendant cannot assert his confrontation right if he has procured the witness's absence "has been applied by the courts in Aguiar, Potamitis, Steele, Thevis, Balano, and Carlson." (White, at p. 620 and fn. 3.) It held that if the defendant was responsible for the absence o | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Tellis v. Contractors' State License Board
green
1 sentence2004(Tellis v. Contractors’ State License Bd., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 163 ; Blasiar, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Bureerong v. Uvawas
green
1 sentence2003The definition of "employer" under Bureerong Reynolds next urges that respondents are employers based on the holding of Bureerong v. Uvawas (C.D.Cal.1996) 922 F.Supp. 1450 ( Bureerong ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Reynolds v. Sims
green
2 sentences2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L 2002The decisive result to be drawn from the conclusion that the strictures of Reynolds v. Sims, supra, 377 U.S. 533 , do not apply in these circumstances is that the governing constitutional test becomes whether the allocation of voting power in a manner that is proportional to the financial impact of the assessment is not “ ‘wholly irrelevant to achievement of the [provision’s] objectives.’ ” (Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water District (1973) 410 U.S. 719, 730 [ 93 S.Ct. 1224, 1231 , 35 L.Ed.2d 659 ] (Salyer), quoting *1000 Kotch v. Pilot Comm’rs (1947) 330 U.S. 552, 556 [ 67 S.Ct. 910, 912 , 91 L | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.