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 Texas opinions name it 5 courts 1996–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1996Accordingly, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, at 698 (1984), in defining the prejudice prong of the test for Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel, and in United States v. Bagley, supra, 473 U.S. at 682 , 105 S.Ct. at 3383 , 87 L.Ed.2d at 494 , when defining “materiality” of Brady-type error (other than the knowing use of perjured testimony), the Supreme Court unmistakably constructed a standard that is outcome-determinative, viz: whether there is a “reasonable probability that ... the result of the proceeding would have 1996Accordingly, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, at 698 (1984), in defining the prejudice prong of the test for Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel, and in United States v. Bagley, supra, 473 U.S. at 682 , 105 S.Ct. at 3383 , 87 L.Ed.2d at 494 , when defining “materiality” of Brady-type error (other than the knowing use of perjured testimony), the Supreme Court unmistakably constructed a standard that is outcome-determinative, viz: whether there is a “reasonable probability that ... the result of the proceeding would have | 2 | 3 |
Torres, Ex Parte Manuelgreen2 sentences2026See Torres, 483 S.W.3d at 43 . 2022Ex parte Torres, 483 S.W.3d at 43 . | 1 | 3 |
Sutton, Christopher Leegreen1 sentence2026See RSL Funding, LLC, 499 S.W.3d at 434 (recognizing that when a party opposing arbitration fails to establish the first prong of the test for waiver, i.e., that the moving party substantially invoked the judicial process, it is unnecessary for the court to address the second prong of the analysis, i.e., whether the opposing party suffered any prejudice or detriment); see also Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 118 (concluding that because the party moving for arbitration did not substantially invoke the judicial process, the court did not need to address whether the non-moving parties were prejudiced by th | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Cash Biz, LPgreen1 sentence2026See RSL Funding, LLC, 499 S.W.3d at 434 (recognizing that when a party opposing arbitration fails to establish the first prong of the test for waiver, i.e., that the moving party substantially invoked the judicial process, it is unnecessary for the court to address the second prong of the analysis, i.e., whether the opposing party suffered any prejudice or detriment); see also Henry, 551 S.W.3d at 118 (concluding that because the party moving for arbitration did not substantially invoke the judicial process, the court did not need to address whether the non-moving parties were prejudiced by th | 1 | 1 |
RSL Funding, LLC v. Pippinsgreen1 sentence2021RSL Funding, LLC v. Pippins, 499 S.W.3d 423, 434 (Tex. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thompson v. State
green
1 sentence2018Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 812 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Garcia v. State
green
1 sentence2013See 5 Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 ; Garcia, 57 S.W.3d at 440 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Kyles v. Whitley
green
2 sentences1996My conclusion is bolstered by an observation the Supreme Court made in Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). 1996My conclusion is bolstered by an observation the Supreme Court made in Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S.-, 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Bagley
green
2 sentences1996Accordingly, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, at 698 (1984), in defining the prejudice prong of the test for Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel, and in United States v. Bagley, supra, 473 U.S. at 682 , 105 S.Ct. at 3383 , 87 L.Ed.2d at 494 , when defining “materiality” of Brady-type error (other than the knowing use of perjured testimony), the Supreme Court unmistakably constructed a standard that is outcome-determinative, viz: whether there is a “reasonable probability that ... the result of the proceeding would have 1996Accordingly, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, at 2068 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674, at 698 (1984), in defining the prejudice prong of the test for Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel, and in United States v. Bagley, supra, 473 U.S. at 682 , 105 S.Ct. at 3383 , 87 L.Ed.2d at 494 , when defining “materiality” of Brady-type error (other than the knowing use of perjured testimony), the Supreme Court unmistakably constructed a standard that is outcome-determinative, viz: whether there is a “reasonable probability that ... the result of the proceeding would have | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.