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.
8 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Redmond v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Redmond v. State, 30 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex. App.Beaumont 2000, no pet.) ("The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept.") (emphasis added); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 901 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, pet. ref'd) ("The Court has consistently held that without verification or affidavit, a motion for new trial based on matters outside the record is insufficient as a pleading.") (emphasis added) (citing Bearden v. State, 648 S.W. 2001See Redmond v. State, 30 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.) (“The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept.”) (emphasis added); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 901 (TexApp.—El Paso 1995, pet. refd) (“The Court has consistently held that without verification or affidavit, a motion for new trial based on matters outside the record is insufficient as a pleading.”) (emphasis added) (citing Bearden v. State, 648 S.W.2d | 3 | 3 |
Belton v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Redmond v. State, 30 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex. App.Beaumont 2000, no pet.) ("The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept.") (emphasis added); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 901 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, pet. ref'd) ("The Court has consistently held that without verification or affidavit, a motion for new trial based on matters outside the record is insufficient as a pleading.") (emphasis added) (citing Bearden v. State, 648 S.W. 2001See Redmond v. State, 30 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.) (“The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept.”) (emphasis added); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 901 (TexApp.—El Paso 1995, pet. refd) (“The Court has consistently held that without verification or affidavit, a motion for new trial based on matters outside the record is insufficient as a pleading.”) (emphasis added) (citing Bearden v. State, 648 S.W.2d | 3 | 3 |
Bearden v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Redmond v. State, 30 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex. App.Beaumont 2000, no pet.) ("The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept.") (emphasis added); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 901 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, pet. ref'd) ("The Court has consistently held that without verification or affidavit, a motion for new trial based on matters outside the record is insufficient as a pleading.") (emphasis added) (citing Bearden v. State, 648 S.W. 2001See Redmond v. State, 30 S.W.3d 692, 700 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2000, no pet.) (“The judicially imposed requirement of an affidavit or verification as a prerequisite for an evidentiary hearing on a motion for new trial has existed throughout the various incarnations of the governing precept.”) (emphasis added); Belton v. State, 900 S.W.2d 886, 901 (TexApp.—El Paso 1995, pet. refd) (“The Court has consistently held that without verification or affidavit, a motion for new trial based on matters outside the record is insufficient as a pleading.”) (emphasis added) (citing Bearden v. State, 648 S.W.2d | 3 | 3 |
Baker v. Stategreen2 sentences2019This rule is “a judicially imposed rule of evidence: questioning in violation of Miranda is not itself illegal; the answers to such questioning are simply inadmissible in court.” Baker v. State, 956 S.W.2d 19, 24 (Tex. Crim. 2019This Miranda rule is “a judicially imposed rule of evidence: questioning in violation of Miranda is not itself illegal; the answers to such questioning are simply inadmissible in court.” Baker v. State, 956 S.W.2d 19, 24 (Tex. Crim. | 2 | 2 |
Alcott v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Cf. Alcott v. State, 26 S.W.3d 1, 4-5 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, pet. granted) (holding verified motion for new trial did not require a hearing because it "lacks sufficient detail to put the trial court on notice that reasonable grounds for relief exist"). 2001Cf. Alcott v. State, 26 S.W.3d 1, 4-5 (Tex.App.—Waco 1999, pet. granted) (holding verified motion for new trial did not require a hearing because it “lacks sufficient detail to put the trial court on notice that reasonable grounds for relief exist”). | 2 | 2 |
Scott v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2019App. 1997). “[T]he Miranda requirements embody an exclusionary rule or remedy rather than 2 In its brief, the State also asserts that many of the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law incorrectly considered the subjective intent of Officer Koepp rather than performing “an objective assessment of [his] actions in light of the facts and circumstances then known to him.” See Scott v. United States, 436 U.S. 128, 137 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
Mallet v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (1981 Code of Criminal Procedure); Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1914) (opinion on rehearing) (1911 Code of Criminal Procedure); Mallet v. State, 9 S.W.3d 856, 865 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (1997 Rules of Appellate Procedure). | 1 | 1 |
Reyes v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (1981 Code of Criminal Procedure); Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1914) (opinion on rehearing) (1911 Code of Criminal Procedure); Mallet v. State, 9 S.W.3d 856, 865 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (1997 Rules of Appellate Procedure). | 1 | 1 |
McIntire v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (1981 Code of Criminal Procedure); Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1914) (opinion on rehearing) (1911 Code of Criminal Procedure); Mallet v. State, 9 S.W.3d 856, 865 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (1997 Rules of Appellate Procedure). | 1 | 1 |
Hicks v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (1981 Code of Criminal Procedure); Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1914) (opinion on rehearing) (1911 Code of Criminal Procedure); Mallet v. State, 9 S.W.3d 856, 865 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (1997 Rules of Appellate Procedure). 2000Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (1981 Code of Criminal Procedure); Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1914) (opinion on rehearing) (1911 Code of Criminal Procedure); Mallet v. State, 9 S.W.3d 856, 865 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (1997 Rules of Appellate Procedure). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
in Re Valliance Bank
green
1 sentence2015Finally, as the Second Court of Appeals explained in In re Valliance Bank, 422 S.W.3d 722 , 728 & n. 3 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2012, orig. proceeding), the reasoning of Crown Life, relied upon by Copano, is not absolute. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jordan v. State
green
1 sentence2000Jordan v. State, 883 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); Reyes v. State, 849 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (1986 Rules of Appellate Procedure); McIntire v. State, 698 S.W.2d 652, 658 (Tex.Crim.App.1985) (1981 Code of Criminal Procedure); Hicks v. State, 75 Tex.Crim. 461 , 171 S.W. 755, 763 (1914) (opinion on rehearing) (1911 Code of Criminal Procedure); Mallet v. State, 9 S.W.3d 856, 865 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2000, no pet.) (1997 Rules of Appellate Procedure). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Oregon v. Elstad
green
2 sentences1997This rule of evidence was formulated out of a concern that a bright-line rule might be necessary to adequately protect a defendant’s constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination, but even in Miranda , the Court “disclaimed any intent to create a ‘constitutional straitjacket’ and invited Congress and the States to suggest ‘potential alternatives for protecting the privilege.’ ” Elstad, 470 U.S. at 307 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. at 1292 n. 1 (citing and quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467 , 86 S.Ct. at 1624 ). 1997This rule of evidence was formulated out of a concern that a bright-line rule might be necessary to adequately protect a defendant’s constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination, but even in Miranda , the Court “disclaimed any intent to create a ‘constitutional straitjacket’ and invited Congress and the States to suggest ‘potential alternatives for protecting the privilege.’ ” Elstad, 470 U.S. at 307 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. at 1292 n. 1 (citing and quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467 , 86 S.Ct. at 1624 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1997This rule of evidence was formulated out of a concern that a bright-line rule might be necessary to adequately protect a defendant’s constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination, but even in Miranda , the Court “disclaimed any intent to create a ‘constitutional straitjacket’ and invited Congress and the States to suggest ‘potential alternatives for protecting the privilege.’ ” Elstad, 470 U.S. at 307 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. at 1292 n. 1 (citing and quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467 , 86 S.Ct. at 1624 ). 1997This rule of evidence was formulated out of a concern that a bright-line rule might be necessary to adequately protect a defendant’s constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination, but even in Miranda , the Court “disclaimed any intent to create a ‘constitutional straitjacket’ and invited Congress and the States to suggest ‘potential alternatives for protecting the privilege.’ ” Elstad, 470 U.S. at 307 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. at 1292 n. 1 (citing and quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467 , 86 S.Ct. at 1624 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.