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.
10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
JM v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Morgan, Res Gestae, supra note 6, at 96. [18] *369 Hence, Florida's spontaneous statement exception is consistent with Professor Thayer's early view that declarations are admissible when "made by those present when a thing took place, made about it, and importing what is present at the very time." Thayer, supra, at 83. [19] Case Law Under The Evidence Code Since the adoption of the evidence code, this Court has stated: A spontaneous statement must be made "at the time of, or immediately following, the declarant's observation of the event or condition described." J.M. v. State, 665 So.2d 1135, | 1 | 1 |
O'Keefe v. Passaic Valley Water Commissiongreen2 sentences2004Since at least 1888, this Court has subscribed to a principle of judicial restraint sometimes called the "last resort rule," [5] in which we avoid considering a constitutional question when the case can be decided on nonconstitutional grounds. [6] The district courts of appeal also subscribe to the rule. [7] The policy behind the rule stems from "respect for other branches and levels of government, an awareness of the limitations of judicial power, sensitivity to the burdens of a constitutional adjudication, and appreciation that others may provide a more useful answer." O'Keefe v. Passaic Val 2004Since at least 1888, this Court has subscribed to a principle of judicial restraint sometimes called the "last resort rule," [5] in which we avoid considering a constitutional question when the case can be decided on nonconstitutional grounds. [6] The district courts of appeal also subscribe to the rule. [7] The policy behind the rule stems from "respect for other branches and levels of government, an awareness of the limitations of judicial power, sensitivity to the burdens of a constitutional adjudication, and appreciation that others may provide a more useful answer." O'Keefe v. Passaic Val | 1 | 1 |
Curless v. County of Claygreen1 sentence2004Since at least 1888, this Court has subscribed to a principle of judicial restraint sometimes called the "last resort rule," [5] in which we avoid considering a constitutional question when the case can be decided on nonconstitutional grounds. [6] The district courts of appeal also subscribe to the rule. [7] The policy behind the rule stems from "respect for other branches and levels of government, an awareness of the limitations of judicial power, sensitivity to the burdens of a constitutional adjudication, and appreciation that others may provide a more useful answer." O'Keefe v. Passaic Val | 1 | 1 |
Denolf v. Frank L Jursik Co.green2 sentences1985Jursik Co., 395 Mich. 661 , 238 N.W.2d 1, 4 (1976), and that the policy reasons underlying the rule of exclusion are absent where the subsequent remedial measures are taken by someone not a party to the action. 414 So.2d at 1110 . 1985Jursik Co., 395 Mich. 661 , 238 N.W.2d 1, 4 (1976), and that the policy reasons underlying the rule of exclusion are absent where the subsequent remedial measures are taken by someone not a party to the action. 414 So.2d at 1110 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Harner v. Harner
green
2 sentences1987We find merit to this rule and therefore adopt it. 61 Ill.Dec. at 315 , 434 N.E.2d at 468 . 1987We find merit to this rule and therefore adopt it. 61 Ill.Dec. at 315 , 434 N.E.2d at 468 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Crowder v. Crowder
neutral
1 sentence1987App. 1974), 296 So.2d 842 see Annot., 47 A.L.R.3d 1031 , 1058-61 (1973).) The policy underlying this rule is to prevent the supporting parent from, in effect, unilaterally modifying the support decree and thereby affecting the expectations of the custodial parent as to support payments. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hartman v. OPELIKA MACH. & WELDING
green
1 sentence1985Jursik Co., 395 Mich. 661 , 238 N.W.2d 1, 4 (1976), and that the policy reasons underlying the rule of exclusion are absent where the subsequent remedial measures are taken by someone not a party to the action. 414 So.2d at 1110 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Mathieu v. State
green
2 sentences1984The Court, in holding the defect to be "one of substance and not of form," 101 Fla. at 1324 , 133 So. at 551 , focused on the facts of the case and the policy underlying the requirement of an allegation of venue. 1984"The indictment as framed would not protect the defendant against another prosecution for the same offense, as no county is named as the place of commission of the alleged offense." Id. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Rimes v. State
green
1 sentence1984The Court, in holding the defect to be "one of substance and not of form," 101 Fla. at 1324 , 133 So. at 551 , focused on the facts of the case and the policy underlying the requirement of an allegation of venue. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1983I would recede from Smith, supra. The majority of the Smith panel refused to except from the marital privilege communications made in furtherance of crimes because of the harm it would inflict upon the strong policy underlying the privilege. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Kneale v. Williams
green
2 sentences1977(See Kneale v. Williams, 158 Fla. 811 , 30 So.2d 284 (1947).) We refuse to engraft such an exception upon the marital privilege, again because of the harm it would inflict upon the strong policy underlying the privilege. [2] The state further asserts that the statements made by appellant immediately following the shooting were part of the res gestae, making his words verbal acts rather than communications, and thus taking them outside the scope of the privilege. 1977(See Kneale v. Williams, 158 Fla. 811 , 30 So.2d 284 (1947).) We refuse to engraft such an exception upon the marital privilege, again because of the harm it would inflict upon the strong policy underlying the privilege. [2] The state further asserts that the statements made by appellant immediately following the shooting were part of the res gestae, making his words verbal acts rather than communications, and thus taking them outside the scope of the privilege. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
James D. Sullivan v. T. Francis Kelleher
green
1 sentence1975The policy underlying the doctrine requires that its application not depend on the determination of `nice questions of jurisdiction.' Sullivan v. Kelleher, 1 Cir.1968, 405 F.2d 486, 487 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Charles Earl Jacobson v. Nick F. Schaefer
green
1 sentence1975The defects in the procedure employed in this case will not support a conclusion that there was a clear absence of all jurisdiction." In Jacobson v. Schaefer, supra , the plaintiff was arrested and charged with having violated certain Wisconsin marijuana and narcotic drug laws and the defendant, who was a county judge, set bond at three thousand ($3,000.00) dollars and appointed counsel for the plaintiff. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Burke v. Beasley
green
1 sentence1974In support of this proposition, appellant cites Burke v. Beasley, 75 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1954), and Brake v. Gissendanner, 206 So.2d 10 (Fla.App. 1968), which cases stand for the proposition that the law is well settled that election ballots cannot be used to impeach an official return unless the integrity of the ballots is first clearly established by the plaintiff. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Brake v. Gissendanner
neutral
1 sentence1974In support of this proposition, appellant cites Burke v. Beasley, 75 So.2d 7 (Fla. 1954), and Brake v. Gissendanner, 206 So.2d 10 (Fla.App. 1968), which cases stand for the proposition that the law is well settled that election ballots cannot be used to impeach an official return unless the integrity of the ballots is first clearly established by the plaintiff. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.