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.
9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc.green2 sentences2020However, because certiorari is not the proper vehicle for such a challenge, the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying Somerset’s petition on 3 this basis. 1 See First Baptist Church of Perrine v. Miami-Dade County, 768 So. 2d 1114 , 1115 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“We decline to address the merits of this issue because a petition for certiorari is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of this ordinance . . . [which] must be determined in original proceedings before the circuit court, not by way of a petition for writ of certi 2007We agree with the developer that a petition for writ of certiorari cannot be used for this purpose. "[A] petition seeking certiorari review is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance." Miami-Dade County v. Omnipoint Holdings, Inc., 863 So.2d 195, 199 (Fla.2003) (citation omitted). | 2 | 4 |
City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillantgreen2 sentences2003Vaillant, 419 So.2d at 626 . 2003See City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So.2d 624, 626 (Fla.1982) (The district court, in reviewing the circuit court's judgment determines "whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law."). | 2 | 2 |
Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hofergreen1 sentence2020Further, “a circuit court order that . . . provides a result without a written opinion and therefore cannot act as precedent in future cases, will generally not merit certiorari review in the district court, even if the district court might disagree with the result.” Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Alliston, 813 So. 2d 141, 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hofer, 5 So. 3d 766, 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“A circuit court’s decision will generally not merit certiorari review if it is issued without a written opinion or is particularly fact- dependent o | 1 | 1 |
DHSMV v. Allistongreen1 sentence2020Further, “a circuit court order that . . . provides a result without a written opinion and therefore cannot act as precedent in future cases, will generally not merit certiorari review in the district court, even if the district court might disagree with the result.” Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Alliston, 813 So. 2d 141, 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hofer, 5 So. 3d 766, 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“A circuit court’s decision will generally not merit certiorari review if it is issued without a written opinion or is particularly fact- dependent o | 1 | 1 |
Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenaisgreen1 sentence2016See Houghtaling, 611 So.2d at 1236 ; Seminole Police Dep’t v. Casadella, 478 So.2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 503 (Fla.1989) (recognizing the necessity of a “limited evidentiary hearing in order to determine the jurisdiction issue,” in case involving question of personal jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Floridagreen1 sentence2016See Houghtaling, 611 So.2d at 1236 ; Seminole Police Dep’t v. Casadella, 478 So.2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 503 (Fla.1989) (recognizing the necessity of a “limited evidentiary hearing in order to determine the jurisdiction issue,” in case involving question of personal jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
Cooper Village, Inc. v. Morettigreen1 sentence1983See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hallmark Manufacturing, Inc. v. Lujack Construction Co., 372 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see also Cacaro v. Swan, 394 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review dismissed, 402 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1981). *532 Turning to the merits, it is axiomatic that "[a] complaint which will not support a claim against the specific property at issue cannot provide a basis for tying it up by a filing of notice of lis pendens. " Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So.2d 564, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (citing Judge Grimes' dissenting op | 1 | 1 |
Wiggins v. Dojcsangreen1 sentence1983See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hallmark Manufacturing, Inc. v. Lujack Construction Co., 372 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see also Cacaro v. Swan, 394 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review dismissed, 402 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1981). *532 Turning to the merits, it is axiomatic that "[a] complaint which will not support a claim against the specific property at issue cannot provide a basis for tying it up by a filing of notice of lis pendens. " Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So.2d 564, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (citing Judge Grimes' dissenting op | 1 | 1 |
Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparonegreen1 sentence1983See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hallmark Manufacturing, Inc. v. Lujack Construction Co., 372 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see also Cacaro v. Swan, 394 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review dismissed, 402 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1981). *532 Turning to the merits, it is axiomatic that "[a] complaint which will not support a claim against the specific property at issue cannot provide a basis for tying it up by a filing of notice of lis pendens. " Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So.2d 564, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (citing Judge Grimes' dissenting op | 1 | 1 |
Cacaro v. Swangreen1 sentence1983See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hallmark Manufacturing, Inc. v. Lujack Construction Co., 372 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see also Cacaro v. Swan, 394 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review dismissed, 402 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1981). *532 Turning to the merits, it is axiomatic that "[a] complaint which will not support a claim against the specific property at issue cannot provide a basis for tying it up by a filing of notice of lis pendens. " Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So.2d 564, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (citing Judge Grimes' dissenting op | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hutchinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See also Hutchinson v. State, 29 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (recognizing viability of a rule 2 Rule 3.850 provides a procedural vehicle to challenge the voluntariness of a plea after the judgment and sentence have become final on direct appeal. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First Baptist Church of Perrine v. Miami-Dade County
green
1 sentence2020However, because certiorari is not the proper vehicle for such a challenge, the circuit court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying Somerset’s petition on 3 this basis. 1 See First Baptist Church of Perrine v. Miami-Dade County, 768 So. 2d 1114 , 1115 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“We decline to address the merits of this issue because a petition for certiorari is not the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of this ordinance . . . [which] must be determined in original proceedings before the circuit court, not by way of a petition for writ of certi | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Seminole Police Dept. v. Casadella
green
1 sentence2016See Houghtaling, 611 So.2d at 1236 ; Seminole Police Dep’t v. Casadella, 478 So.2d 470 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499, 503 (Fla.1989) (recognizing the necessity of a “limited evidentiary hearing in order to determine the jurisdiction issue,” in case involving question of personal jurisdiction). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hallmark Mfg. Inc. v. Lujack Const. Co.
green
1 sentence1983See Cooper Village, Inc. v. Moretti, 383 So.2d 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hallmark Manufacturing, Inc. v. Lujack Construction Co., 372 So.2d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see also Cacaro v. Swan, 394 So.2d 538 (Fla. 4th DCA), petition for review dismissed, 402 So.2d 608 (Fla. 1981). *532 Turning to the merits, it is axiomatic that "[a] complaint which will not support a claim against the specific property at issue cannot provide a basis for tying it up by a filing of notice of lis pendens. " Lake Placid Holding Co. v. Paparone, 414 So.2d 564, 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (citing Judge Grimes' dissenting op | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.