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 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Moore v. State, 882 N.E.2d 788, 793-94 (Ind.Ct.App.2008). | 1 | 1 |
Bay Colony Marketing Co. v. Fruit Salad, Inc.green1 sentence2001See Champlain v. State, 681 N.E.2d 696, 700-01 (Ind.1997); 2 Sharkey v. State, 672 N.E.2d 987, 941 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996), trams. denied; Bragg v. State, 695 N.E.2d 179, 180 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); Harvey v. State, 652 N.E.2d 876, 877 (Ind.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
Champlain v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Champlain v. State, 681 N.E.2d 696, 700-01 (Ind.1997); 2 Sharkey v. State, 672 N.E.2d 987, 941 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996), trams. denied; Bragg v. State, 695 N.E.2d 179, 180 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); Harvey v. State, 652 N.E.2d 876, 877 (Ind.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
Marshall v. Plainville Igagreen1 sentence2001For support, he cites State *730 v. Huffman, 648 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 1994), Young v. State, 699 N.E.2d 252, 255 (Ind.1998), and various cases that he claims stand for the proposition that the defendant's own testimony is sufficient to place the issue of intent into dispute, requiring that the lesser offense instruction be given. | 1 | 1 |
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence2001For support, he cites State *730 v. Huffman, 648 N.E.2d 899, 901 (Ind. 1994), Young v. State, 699 N.E.2d 252, 255 (Ind.1998), and various cases that he claims stand for the proposition that the defendant's own testimony is sufficient to place the issue of intent into dispute, requiring that the lesser offense instruction be given. | 1 | 1 |
Harvey v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Champlain v. State, 681 N.E.2d 696, 700-01 (Ind.1997); 2 Sharkey v. State, 672 N.E.2d 987, 941 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996), trams. denied; Bragg v. State, 695 N.E.2d 179, 180 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); Harvey v. State, 652 N.E.2d 876, 877 (Ind.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
Collier v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Collier v. State, 572 N.E.2d 1299, 1301 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied. [2] That trial counsel was employing a tactical effort by not tendering a lesser offense instruction is reflected in the earlier memorandum decision that a voluntary manslaughter instruction would have been "incompatible with the theory of defense" that the shooting was accidental. | 1 | 1 |
Bragg v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Champlain v. State, 681 N.E.2d 696, 700-01 (Ind.1997); 2 Sharkey v. State, 672 N.E.2d 987, 941 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996), trams. denied; Bragg v. State, 695 N.E.2d 179, 180 (Ind.Ct.App.1998); Harvey v. State, 652 N.E.2d 876, 877 (Ind.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Stategreen1 sentence1990See, e.g., Owens v. State (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 1375 ; Wedmore v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 546 . | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence1990See, e.g., Jones v. State (1986), Ind., 491 N.E.2d 980 ; Averhart v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 666 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smedley v. State
green
1 sentence1992Smedley v. State (1990), Ind., 561 N.E.2d 776 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Keeble v. United States
green
2 sentences1991Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defen dant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve its doubts in favor of conviction." 412 U.S. at 212-213 , 93 S.Ct. at 1997-1998 . 1991Where one of the elements of the offense charged remains in doubt, but the defen dant is plainly guilty of some offense, the jury is likely to resolve its doubts in favor of conviction." 412 U.S. at 212-213 , 93 S.Ct. at 1997-1998 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Huffman v. State
green
2 sentences1990Huffman v. State (1989), Ind., 543 N.E.2d 360 . 1990Huffman v. State (1989), Ind., 543 N.E.2d 360 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Averhart v. State
green
1 sentence1990See, e.g., Jones v. State (1986), Ind., 491 N.E.2d 980 ; Averhart v. State (1984), Ind., 470 N.E.2d 666 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence1990Jones v. State (1988), 519 N.E.2d 1233, 1234 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Wedmore v. State
green
1 sentence1990See, e.g., Owens v. State (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 1375 ; Wedmore v. State (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 546 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Majko v. State
green
2 sentences1987Majko v. State (1987) Ind., 503 N.E.2d 898 . 1987Majko v. State (1987) Ind., 503 N.E.2d 898 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Fisher v. State
green
1 sentence1987Fisher v. State (1984), Ind., 468 N.E.2d 1365 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Roddy v. State
green
1 sentence1984Roddy v. State, supra. Since the evidence in this case supports a finding that Slayton committed theft but not robbery, we need concern ourselves only with the first of these two steps. *1156 Until recently, in cases concerning the adequacy of an information to charge the defendant with lesser offenses, it was often said that an information sufficient to charge the greater offense was by necessity sufficient to charge any "inherently included" lesser offenses. 2 E.g., Roddy v. State, supra, at 167-68, 394 N.E.2d at 1106 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Blackburn v. State
green
2 sentences1979I concur with part I and with Judge Staton’s analysis as to when it is proper to give a lesser offense instruction. 1 I also concur in the analysis that the offense of aiming a weapon was not inherently included in the charged offense nor was it sufficiently charged by the language of the information to satisfy the requirements of Blackburn v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 5 , 291 N.E.2d 686 . 1979I concur with part I and with Judge Staton’s analysis as to when it is proper to give a lesser offense instruction. 1 I also concur in the analysis that the offense of aiming a weapon was not inherently included in the charged offense nor was it sufficiently charged by the language of the information to satisfy the requirements of Blackburn v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 5 , 291 N.E.2d 686 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.