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 Iowa opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C.green2 sentences2022We made clear in Honomichl that “the Gacke factors require a fact-based analysis that generally requires a trial on the merits, or at least an evidentiary pretrial hearing.” Id. at 238 . 2022We made clear in Honomichl that “the Gacke factors require a fact-based analysis that generally requires a trial on the merits, or at least an evidentiary pretrial hearing.” Id. at 238 . | 2 | 5 |
IA SUPREME CT. ATTY. DISC. BD. v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2020In determining the appropriate sanction, we engage in a fact-based analysis and consider a number of factors, such as “the nature of the underlying violation, need to deter, public protection, protection of the reputation of the legal profession, and the [lawyer]’s fitness to practice law.” Barry, 908 N.W.2d at 227 (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Thompson, 732 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 2007)). 2020In determining the appropriate sanction, we engage in a fact-based analysis and consider a number of factors, such as “the nature of the underlying violation, need to deter, public protection, protection of the reputation of the legal profession, and the [lawyer]’s fitness to practice law.” Barry, 908 N.W.2d at 227 (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Thompson, 732 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 2007)). | 2 | 3 |
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Sean Joseph Barrygreen2 sentences2020In determining the appropriate sanction, we engage in a fact-based analysis and consider a number of factors, such as “the nature of the underlying violation, need to deter, public protection, protection of the reputation of the legal profession, and the [lawyer]’s fitness to practice law.” Barry, 908 N.W.2d at 227 (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Thompson, 732 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 2007)). 2020In determining the appropriate sanction, we engage in a fact-based analysis and consider a number of factors, such as “the nature of the underlying violation, need to deter, public protection, protection of the reputation of the legal profession, and the [lawyer]’s fitness to practice law.” Barry, 908 N.W.2d at 227 (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa Supreme Ct. Att’y Disciplinary Bd. v. Thompson, 732 N.W.2d 865, 867 (Iowa 2007)). | 2 | 2 |
Sorensen v. Denny Nash, Inc.green2 sentences2018Compare Kalenka, 305 P.3d at 351 (holding summary judgment was not warranted when the AIP stayed at the bar for two to four hours, drank no alcohol before arriving at or after leaving the bar, consumed around eighteen to nineteen drinks, exhibited signs of intoxication forty-five minutes after leaving the bar, and had a BAC of .27 at the time of the altercation), with Sorensen, 671 N.Y.S.2d at 560–61 (holding the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to establish that the second location served alcohol to the AIP while he was visibly intoxicated when the AIP consumed alcohol at three diffe 2018Compare Kalenka , 305 P.3d at 351 (holding summary judgment was not warranted when the AIP stayed at the bar for two to four hours, drank no alcohol before arriving at or after leaving the bar, consumed around eighteen to nineteen drinks, exhibited signs of intoxication forty-five minutes after leaving the bar, and had a BAC of .27 at the time of the altercation), with Sorensen , 671 N.Y.S.2d at 560-61 (holding the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to establish that the second location served alcohol to the AIP while he was visibly intoxicated when the AIP consumed alcohol at three dif | 1 | 1 |
Kalenka v. Jadon, Inc.green2 sentences2018Compare Kalenka, 305 P.3d at 351 (holding summary judgment was not warranted when the AIP stayed at the bar for two to four hours, drank no alcohol before arriving at or after leaving the bar, consumed around eighteen to nineteen drinks, exhibited signs of intoxication forty-five minutes after leaving the bar, and had a BAC of .27 at the time of the altercation), with Sorensen, 671 N.Y.S.2d at 560–61 (holding the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to establish that the second location served alcohol to the AIP while he was visibly intoxicated when the AIP consumed alcohol at three diffe 2018Compare Kalenka , 305 P.3d at 351 (holding summary judgment was not warranted when the AIP stayed at the bar for two to four hours, drank no alcohol before arriving at or after leaving the bar, consumed around eighteen to nineteen drinks, exhibited signs of intoxication forty-five minutes after leaving the bar, and had a BAC of .27 at the time of the altercation), with Sorensen , 671 N.Y.S.2d at 560-61 (holding the plaintiff submitted insufficient evidence to establish that the second location served alcohol to the AIP while he was visibly intoxicated when the AIP consumed alcohol at three dif | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morgan HONOMICHL, Robin Honomichl, Timothy Honomichl, Deb Chance, Kara Chance, Karen Jo Frescoln, Mike Merrill, and Q.H., Appellee, v. VALLEY VIEW SWINE, LLC and JBS Live Pork, LLC, Appellants.
green
2 sentences2020Yet we explained that the statute could still be found unconstitutional as to the division A plaintiffs if, on “a fact-based analysis,” they showed that they (1) “received no particular benefit from the nuisance immunity granted to their neighbors other than that inuring to the public in general[,]” (2) “sustain[ed] significant hardship[,]” and (3) “resided on their property long before any animal operation was commenced” on neighboring land and “had spent considerable sums of money in improvements to their property prior to construction of the defendant’s facilities.” Id. at 237–39 (quoting G 2020Yet we explained that the statute could still be found unconstitutional as to the division A plaintiffs if, on “a fact-based analysis,” they showed that they (1) “received no particular benefit from the nuisance immunity granted to their neighbors other than that inuring to the public in general[,]” (2) “sustain[ed] significant hardship[,]” and (3) “resided on their property long before any animal operation was commenced” on neighboring land and “had spent considerable sums of money in improvements to their property prior to construction of the defendant’s facilities.” Id. at 237–39 (quoting G | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Dalarna Farms Vs. Access Energy Coop.
green
2 sentences2018Our holding in Dalarna Farms v. Access Energy Coop. , 792 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa 2010), demonstrates why the Gacke factors require a fact-based analysis that generally requires a trial on the merits, or at least an evidentiary pretrial hearing. 2018There we rejected the plaintiff's argument that section 657.1(2) violated Iowa's inalienable rights clause as applied because it was "premature at this [pretrial] juncture." Id. at 664 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.