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 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Clyde Hayden Sr.
green
2 sentences2020“The decision to invoke plain error review is a discretionary one that is to be used sparingly on a case-by-case basis.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 (citing State v. Rosling, 2008 MT 62, ¶ 77 , 342 Mont. 1 , 180 P.3d 1102 ). ¶12 Both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution guarantee criminal defendants “the right to a fair trial by a jury.” Hayden, ¶ 27. 2020“The decision to invoke plain error review is a discretionary one that is to be used sparingly on a case-by-case basis.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 (citing State v. Rosling, 2008 MT 62, ¶ 77 , 342 Mont. 1 , 180 P.3d 1102 ). ¶12 Both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution guarantee criminal defendants “the right to a fair trial by a jury.” Hayden, ¶ 27. | 4 | 2011–2020 |
State v. Rosling
green
2 sentences2020“The decision to invoke plain error review is a discretionary one that is to be used sparingly on a case-by-case basis.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 (citing State v. Rosling, 2008 MT 62, ¶ 77 , 342 Mont. 1 , 180 P.3d 1102 ). ¶12 Both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution guarantee criminal defendants “the right to a fair trial by a jury.” Hayden, ¶ 27. 2020“The decision to invoke plain error review is a discretionary one that is to be used sparingly on a case-by-case basis.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 (citing State v. Rosling, 2008 MT 62, ¶ 77 , 342 Mont. 1 , 180 P.3d 1102 ). ¶12 Both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution guarantee criminal defendants “the right to a fair trial by a jury.” Hayden, ¶ 27. | 4 | 2008–2020 |
State v. McDonald
green
2 sentences2019"A prosecutor's misconduct may be grounds for reversing a conviction and granting a new trial if the conduct deprives the defendant of a fair and impartial trial." State v. McDonald , 2013 MT 97 , ¶ 10, 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 (quoting Hayden , ¶ 27 ). 2019"A prosecutor's misconduct may be grounds for reversing a conviction and granting a new trial if the conduct deprives the defendant of a fair and impartial trial." State v. McDonald , 2013 MT 97 , ¶ 10, 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 (quoting Hayden , ¶ 27 ). | 3 | 2017–2019 |
In re the Mental Health of D.L.T.
green
2 sentences2017State v. McDonald, 2013 MT 97, ¶ 8 , 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 . ¶17 Moreover, the cases cited by C.B. to support her request for review on appeal—In re Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 (overruled in part on other grounds by Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 2007 MT 43, ¶ 21 , 336 Mont. 105 , 152 P.3d 727 ), and In re Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 , 308 Mont. 222 , 41 P.3d 323—are distinguishable and inapposite. 2017State v. McDonald, 2013 MT 97, ¶ 8 , 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 . ¶17 Moreover, the cases cited by C.B. to support her request for review on appeal—In re Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 (overruled in part on other grounds by Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 2007 MT 43, ¶ 21 , 336 Mont. 105 , 152 P.3d 727 ), and In re Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 , 308 Mont. 222 , 41 P.3d 323—are distinguishable and inapposite. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Matter of Mental Health of T.J.D.
green
2 sentences2017State v. McDonald, 2013 MT 97, ¶ 8 , 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 . ¶17 Moreover, the cases cited by C.B. to support her request for review on appeal—In re Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 (overruled in part on other grounds by Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 2007 MT 43, ¶ 21 , 336 Mont. 105 , 152 P.3d 727 ), and In re Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 , 308 Mont. 222 , 41 P.3d 323—are distinguishable and inapposite. 2017State v. McDonald, 2013 MT 97, ¶ 8 , 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 . ¶17 Moreover, the cases cited by C.B. to support her request for review on appeal—In re Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 (overruled in part on other grounds by Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 2007 MT 43, ¶ 21 , 336 Mont. 105 , 152 P.3d 727 ), and In re Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 , 308 Mont. 222 , 41 P.3d 323—are distinguishable and inapposite. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Johnson v. Costco Wholesale
green
2 sentences2017State v. McDonald, 2013 MT 97, ¶ 8 , 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 . ¶17 Moreover, the cases cited by C.B. to support her request for review on appeal—In re Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 (overruled in part on other grounds by Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 2007 MT 43, ¶ 21 , 336 Mont. 105 , 152 P.3d 727 ), and In re Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 , 308 Mont. 222 , 41 P.3d 323—are distinguishable and inapposite. 2017State v. McDonald, 2013 MT 97, ¶ 8 , 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 . ¶17 Moreover, the cases cited by C.B. to support her request for review on appeal—In re Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 (overruled in part on other grounds by Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 2007 MT 43, ¶ 21 , 336 Mont. 105 , 152 P.3d 727 ), and In re Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 , 308 Mont. 222 , 41 P.3d 323—are distinguishable and inapposite. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Matter of D.L.T.
neutral
2 sentences2017State v. McDonald, 2013 MT 97, ¶ 8 , 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 . ¶17 Moreover, the cases cited by C.B. to support her request for review on appeal—In re Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 (overruled in part on other grounds by Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 2007 MT 43, ¶ 21 , 336 Mont. 105 , 152 6 P.3d 727 ), and In re Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 , 308 Mont. 222 , 41 P.3d 323— are distinguishable and inapposite. 2017State v. McDonald, 2013 MT 97, ¶ 8 , 369 Mont. 483 , 299 P.3d 799 . ¶17 Moreover, the cases cited by C.B. to support her request for review on appeal—In re Mental Health of D.L.T., 2003 MT 46 , 314 Mont. 297 , 67 P.3d 189 (overruled in part on other grounds by Johnson v. Costco Wholesale, 2007 MT 43, ¶ 21 , 336 Mont. 105 , 152 P.3d 727 ), and In re Mental Health of T.J.D., 2002 MT 24 , 308 Mont. 222 , 41 P.3d 323—are distinguishable and inapposite. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Harley Howard
green
2 sentences2013The decision to invoke plain error review is “a discretionary one.” Hayden , ¶ 17. ¶22 “Only record-based ineffective assistance of counsel claims are considered on direct appeal.” State v. Howard, 2011 MT 246, ¶ 18 , 362 Mont. 196 , 265 P.3d 606 . 2013The decision to invoke plain error review is “a discretionary one.” Hayden , ¶ 17. ¶22 “Only record-based ineffective assistance of counsel claims are considered on direct appeal.” State v. Howard, 2011 MT 246, ¶ 18 , 362 Mont. 196 , 265 P.3d 606 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Jared Williams
neutral
2 sentences2019The decision to invoke plain error review is a discretionary one, to be invoked "sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, according to narrow circumstances, and by considering the totality of the circumstances." Aker , ¶ 21 ; State v. Williams , 2015 MT 247 , ¶ 16, 380 Mont. 445 , 358 P.3d 127 . ¶24 Both the Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution, and Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution, guarantee criminal defendants "the right to a fair trial by a jury." State v. Hayden , 2008 MT 274 , ¶ 27, 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 . 2019The decision to invoke plain error review is a discretionary one, to be invoked "sparingly, on a case-by-case basis, according to narrow circumstances, and by considering the totality of the circumstances." Aker , ¶ 21 ; State v. Williams , 2015 MT 247 , ¶ 16, 380 Mont. 445 , 358 P.3d 127 . ¶24 Both the Sixth Amendment to United States Constitution, and Article II, Section 24, of the Montana Constitution, guarantee criminal defendants "the right to a fair trial by a jury." State v. Hayden , 2008 MT 274 , ¶ 27, 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2013State v. Mitchell, 2012 MT 227, ¶ 10 , 366 Mont. 379 , 286 P.3d 1196 . “ ‘[A] mere assertion that constitutional rights are implicated or that failure to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice is insufficient to implicate the plain error doctrine.’ ” Mitchell , ¶ 10. ¶40 In the case at hand, King has not specifically requested that we invoke the plain error doctrine. 2013State v. Mitchell, 2012 MT 227, ¶ 10 , 366 Mont. 379 , 286 P.3d 1196 . “ ‘[A] mere assertion that constitutional rights are implicated or that failure to review the claimed error may result in a manifest miscarriage of justice is insufficient to implicate the plain error doctrine.’ ” Mitchell , ¶ 10. ¶40 In the case at hand, King has not specifically requested that we invoke the plain error doctrine. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Norman
green
2 sentences2011State v. Norman, 2010 MT 253, ¶ 17 , 358 Mont. 252 , 244 P.3d 737 . ‘The decision to invoke plain error review is a discretionary one that is to be used sparingly on a case-by-case basis.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 . 2011State v. Norman, 2010 MT 253, ¶ 17 , 358 Mont. 252 , 244 P.3d 737 . ‘The decision to invoke plain error review is a discretionary one that is to be used sparingly on a case-by-case basis.” State v. Hayden, 2008 MT 274, ¶ 17 , 345 Mont. 252 , 190 P.3d 1091 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |