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 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estorque v. Schafergreen1 sentence2025See Estorque, 302 S.W.3d at 26 (“Qualifications must appear in the expert report and cannot be inferred.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ex parte Lalondegreen1 sentence2021App. 1989) (adopting Bagley standard of materiality); see Lalonde, 570 S.W.3d at 725 . 2. | 1 | 1 |
Wyatt v. Stategreen2 sentences2002United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); see also Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). 4 . 2002United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); see also Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). 4 . | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2002United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); see also Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). 4 . 2002United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676 , 105 S.Ct. 3375 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); see also Wyatt v. State, 23 S.W.3d 18, 27 (Tex.Crim.App.2000); Thomas v. State, 841 S.W.2d 399, 404 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). 4 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeLeongreen2 sentences2001See State v. DeLeon , 971 S.W.2d 701, 705-06 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d). 2001See State v. DeLeon , 971 S.W.2d 701, 705-06 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 1998, pet. ref’d). | 1 | 1 |
Kyles v. Whitleygreen2 sentences1999Id. at 1566. 1999Id. at 1566. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Bagley
green
2 sentences1996Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that the Bagley standard may be legitimately characterized as either a “harmless error” standard or a “materiality” standard: “Although this rule is stated in terms that treat the knowing use of perjured testimony as error subject to a harmless error review, it may as easily be stated as a materiality standard.” Id. at 679-680 , 105 S.Ct. at 3382 . 1996Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that the Bagley standard may be legitimately characterized as either a “harmless error” standard or a “materiality” standard: “Although this rule is stated in terms that treat the knowing use of perjured testimony as error subject to a harmless error review, it may as easily be stated as a materiality standard.” Id. at 679-680 , 105 S.Ct. at 3382 . | 5 | 1996–2024 |
Pena, Jose Luis
green
2 sentences2012Pena, 353 S.W.3d at 811 . 2012Pena , 353 S.W.3d at 811 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Miles, Ex Parte Richard Ray Jr.
green
1 sentence2024App. 1989) (adopting Bagley standard of materiality); Miles, 359 S.W.3d at 665 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wearry v. Cain
green
1 sentence2016Had defense counsel properly prepared Kenneth to testify consistently with his original statement to the police and his grand jury testimony, then defense counsel would have been in a position to argue to the jury that Applicant had no more than ten minutes in which to commit the offense. 51 Indeed, as is the case with the Bagley test for materiality, under the Strickland test for prejudice, Applicant “can prevail even if” trial counsel’s deficiency “may not have affected the jury’s verdict.” Wearry v. Cain, 136 S.Ct. at 1006 n.6. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.