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 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklingreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin, 429 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983) (procedural due process); cf. Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, 214 N.J.Super. 408 , 519 A.2d 911 (1986) (finding constitutional principles inapplicable for lack of state action), rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. 650 , 542 A.2d 900 , 76 A.L.R.4th 273 (N.J.1988); Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Chambliss, 705 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.1985) (reviewing for constitutionality while recognizing that t 1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass’n v. Bolotin, 429 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. | 2 | 2 |
Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n v. Chamblissgreen1 sentence1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin, 429 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983) (procedural due process); cf. Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, 214 N.J.Super. 408 , 519 A.2d 911 (1986) (finding constitutional principles inapplicable for lack of state action), rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. 650 , 542 A.2d 900 , 76 A.L.R.4th 273 (N.J.1988); Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Chambliss, 705 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.1985) (reviewing for constitutionality while recognizing that t | 1 | 1 |
SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mallgreen2 sentences1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and his 1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and his | 1 | 1 |
Woodland v. Michigan Citizens Lobbygreen2 sentences1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and his 1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and his | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alderwood Associates v. Washington Environmental Council
green
2 sentences1999"Rather than emasculate the state action requirement from the Declaration of Rights, however, I would hold that the activity engaged in here by the defendants is authorized by Const. art. 2, § 1(a) (amendment 7), RCW 29.79, and the cases decided by this court." Alderwood Assocs., 96 Wash.2d at 251 , 635 P.2d 108 (citing State ex rel. 1999"Rather than emasculate the state action requirement from the Declaration of Rights, however, I would hold that the activity engaged in here by the defendants is authorized by Const. art. 2, § 1(a) (amendment 7), RCW 29.79, and the cases decided by this court." Alderwood Assocs., 96 Wash.2d at 251 , 635 P.2d 108 (citing State ex rel. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
State Ex Rel. Evich v. Superior Court
neutral
2 sentences1999Evich v. Superior Court, 188 Wash. 19 , 61 P.2d 143 (1936); State ex rel. 1999Evich v. Superior Court, 188 Wash. 19 , 61 P.2d 143 (1936); State ex rel. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin, 429 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983) (procedural due process); cf. Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, 214 N.J.Super. 408 , 519 A.2d 911 (1986) (finding constitutional principles inapplicable for lack of state action), rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. 650 , 542 A.2d 900 , 76 A.L.R.4th 273 (N.J.1988); Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Chambliss, 705 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.1985) (reviewing for constitutionality while recognizing that t 1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass’n v. Bolotin, 429 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. | 2 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence2023As we discussed above, the court’s reasoning for denying A.A.T.’s motion to suppress the gun was based on the state action doctrine. “[N]either state nor federal constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are implicated, without state action.” Carter, 151 Wn.2d at 124 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Reitman v. Mulkey
green
2 sentences2007Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369, 378 , 87 S.Ct. 1627 , 18 L.Ed.2d 830 (1967) (stating there is no "infallible test" for determining the existence of state action). 2007Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369, 378 , 87 S.Ct. 1627 , 18 L.Ed.2d 830 (1967) (stating there is no "infallible test" for determining the existence of state action). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Dependency of Grove
green
2 sentences2007We note that Luscier and Myricks were favorably cited more recently in our case, In re Dependency of Grove, 127 Wash.2d 221 , 897 P.2d 1252 (1995). [4] The parenting plan provides for the "resolution of future disputes between the parents, allocation of decision-making authority, and residential provisions for the child." RCW 26.09.184(2). [5] For the sake of this opinion, we assume without deciding that the state action requirement is satisfied. 2007We note that Luscier and Myricks were favorably cited more recently in our case, In re Dependency of Grove, 127 Wash.2d 221 , 897 P.2d 1252 (1995). [4] The parenting plan provides for the "resolution of future disputes between the parents, allocation of decision-making authority, and residential provisions for the child." RCW 26.09.184(2). [5] For the sake of this opinion, we assume without deciding that the state action requirement is satisfied. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin, 429 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983) (procedural due process); cf. Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, 214 N.J.Super. 408 , 519 A.2d 911 (1986) (finding constitutional principles inapplicable for lack of state action), rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. 650 , 542 A.2d 900 , 76 A.L.R.4th 273 (N.J.1988); Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Chambliss, 705 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.1985) (reviewing for constitutionality while recognizing that t 1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin, 429 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983) (procedural due process); cf. Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, 214 N.J.Super. 408 , 519 A.2d 911 (1986) (finding constitutional principles inapplicable for lack of state action), rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. 650 , 542 A.2d 900 , 76 A.L.R.4th 273 (N.J.1988); Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Chambliss, 705 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.1985) (reviewing for constitutionality while recognizing that t | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Thanasoulis v. Winston Towers 200 Ass'n.
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin, 429 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983) (procedural due process); cf. Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, 214 N.J.Super. 408 , 519 A.2d 911 (1986) (finding constitutional principles inapplicable for lack of state action), rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. 650 , 542 A.2d 900 , 76 A.L.R.4th 273 (N.J.1988); Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Chambliss, 705 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.1985) (reviewing for constitutionality while recognizing that t 1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin, 429 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983) (procedural due process); cf. Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, 214 N.J.Super. 408 , 519 A.2d 911 (1986) (finding constitutional principles inapplicable for lack of state action), rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. 650 , 542 A.2d 900 , 76 A.L.R.4th 273 (N.J.1988); Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Chambliss, 705 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.1985) (reviewing for constitutionality while recognizing that t | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Franklin v. Spadafora
green
2 sentences1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin, 429 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983) (procedural due process); cf. Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, 214 N.J.Super. 408 , 519 A.2d 911 (1986) (finding constitutional principles inapplicable for lack of state action), rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. 650 , 542 A.2d 900 , 76 A.L.R.4th 273 (N.J.1988); Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Chambliss, 705 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.1985) (reviewing for constitutionality while recognizing that t 1998See, e.g., White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) (equal protection); Majestic View Condominium Ass'n v. Bolotin, 429 So.2d 438 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.1983) (procedural due process); cf. Thanasoulis v. Winston Tower 200 Ass'n, 214 N.J.Super. 408 , 519 A.2d 911 (1986) (finding constitutional principles inapplicable for lack of state action), rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. 650 , 542 A.2d 900 , 76 A.L.R.4th 273 (N.J.1988); Covered Bridge Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Chambliss, 705 S.W.2d 211, 213 (Tex.App.1985) (reviewing for constitutionality while recognizing that t | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cologne v. Westfarms Associates
green
2 sentences1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and his 1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and his | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Jacobs v. Major
green
2 sentences1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and his 1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and his | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc.
green
2 sentences1989In Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 152 , 379 N.E.2d 1169 , 408 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1978), the New York Court of Appeals developed a flexible "state involvement" test when applying the state constitution's due process clause to a dispute over a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. 1989In Sharrock v. Dell Buick-Cadillac, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 152 , 379 N.E.2d 1169 , 408 N.Y.S.2d 39 (1978), the New York Court of Appeals developed a flexible "state involvement" test when applying the state constitution's due process clause to a dispute over a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Woodland v. Michigan Citizens Lobby
neutral
2 sentences1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and his 1989See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496 , 488 N.E.2d 1211 , 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 (1985) (court looked at debates at the state constitutional convention and concluded that framers intended a state action requirement; reiterated that Bill of Rights is meant to protect individuals from State, not other private individuals); Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48 , 469 A.2d 1201 (1984) (court found "no historical basis" for a lack of a state action requirement); Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis.2d 492 , 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987) (construed state action requirement through "plain language" and hist | 1 | 1989–1989 |
PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins
green
2 sentences1981Ed. 2d 741 , 100 S. Ct. 2035 (1980), a "State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not amount to a taking without just compensation or contravene any other federal constitutional provision." Rather than emasculate the state action requirement from the Declaration of Rights, however, I would hold that the activity engaged in here by the defendants is authorized by Const, art. 2, § 1(a) (amendment 7), RCW 29.79, and the cases decided by this court. 1981As noted in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 , 64 L.Ed.2d 741 , 100 S.Ct. 2035 (1980), a "State in the exercise of its police power may adopt reasonable restrictions on private property so long as the restrictions do not amount to a taking without just compensation or contravene any other federal constitutional provision." Rather than emasculate the state action requirement from the Declaration of Rights, however, I would hold that the activity engaged in here by the defendants is authorized by Const. art. 2, § 1(a) (amendment 7), RCW 29.79, and the cases decided by this co | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks
green
2 sentences1980Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 , 56 L. 1980Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149 , 56 L. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.