Your MCP token and copy-and-paste setup for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and the rest are on the install page — filled in with your real credentials while you are signed in.
Delete 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. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant — emailed to you with setup instructions, and always available under that icon.
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.
10 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.green2 sentences2019Hunt Transp., Inc., 492 S.W.3d 287, 299 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (explaining that “a case[’s] . . . . proceed[ing] in the wrong court necessarily” satisfies the adequate-remedy test). 2 See In re J.B. 2019Hunt Transp., Inc. , 492 S.W.3d 287 , 299 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (explaining that "a case['s] .... proceed[ing] in the wrong court necessarily" satisfies the adequate-remedy test). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2025Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Page 21 remedy is inadequate, nor does he contend that availing himself of the appellate remedy would result in a permanent deprivation of his substantial rights or assert that any extraordinary circumstances exist which should excuse this case from the adequate remedy requirement”); In re Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 139 S.W.3d 669, 670 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (“Because KCSI has not shown that its appellate remedy will cause the permanent loss of substantial rights, we deny the writ.”); Hooks v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 808 S.W.2d 56, 59-60 (Te | 1 | 1 |
Hooks v. Fourth Court of Appealsgreen1 sentence2025Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus Page 21 remedy is inadequate, nor does he contend that availing himself of the appellate remedy would result in a permanent deprivation of his substantial rights or assert that any extraordinary circumstances exist which should excuse this case from the adequate remedy requirement”); In re Kansas City S. Indus., Inc., 139 S.W.3d 669, 670 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (“Because KCSI has not shown that its appellate remedy will cause the permanent loss of substantial rights, we deny the writ.”); Hooks v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 808 S.W.2d 56, 59-60 (Te | 1 | 1 |
Guerrero v. Guerragreen1 sentence2025See, e.g., Guerrero v. Guerra, 165 S.W.3d 778, 780 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2005, no pet.) (reviewing enforcement order on direct appeal). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.green1 sentence2024See In re Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., 145 S.W.3d 203, 210-11 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Columbia Med. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Gohmertgreen1 sentence2021Smith v. Gohmert, 962 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Flackgreen1 sentence2014App. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Smith v. Flack, 728 S.W.2d 784, 792 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
De Leon v. Aguilargreen1 sentence2007De Leon v. Aguilar , 127 S.W.3d 1, 6-7 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greenwell v. COURT OF APP. THIRTEENTH JUD. DIST.
green
1 sentence2014With respect to the lack of an adequate remedy requirement, “potential review at a later time is not always or automatically an adequate remedy: ‘In some cases, a remedy at law may technically exist; however, it may nevertheless be so uncertain, tedious, burdensome, slow, inconvenient, inappropriate, or ineffective as to be deemed inadequate.’” Greenwell v. Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 159 S.W.3d 645 , 648–49 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Gulf Exploration, LLC
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Allen v. Humphreys
green
2 sentences2008An appellate remedy is not inadequate “merely because it may involve more expense or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ.” Id. at 842 . 2008An appellate remedy is not inadequate "merely because it may involve more expense or delay than obtaining an extraordinary writ." Id. at 842 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.