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. 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.
7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bricker v. Greengreen2 sentences2024See Lake Shore & MSR Co v Miller, 25 Mich 274, 278-279 (1872), overruled on other grounds, Bricker v Green, 313 Mich 218 (1946). [Marion v Grand Trunk W R Co, 510 Mich 942 , 942-943 (2022).] 1 According to plaintiff’s expert, the emergency brake was applied between seven and eight tenths of a second before impact. 2024See Lake Shore & MSR Co v Miller, 25 Mich 274, 278-279 (1872), overruled on other grounds, Bricker v Green, 313 Mich 218 (1946). [Marion v Grand Trunk W R Co, 510 Mich 942 , 942-943 (2022).] 1 According to plaintiff’s expert, the emergency brake was applied between seven and eight tenths of a second before impact. | 2 | 2 |
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railroad v. Millergreen2 sentences2024See Lake Shore & MSR Co v Miller, 25 Mich 274, 278-279 (1872), overruled on other grounds, Bricker v Green, 313 Mich 218 (1946). [Marion v Grand Trunk W R Co, 510 Mich 942 , 942-943 (2022).] 1 According to plaintiff’s expert, the emergency brake was applied between seven and eight tenths of a second before impact. 2024See Lake Shore & MSR Co v Miller, 25 Mich 274, 278-279 (1872), overruled on other grounds, Bricker v Green, 313 Mich 218 (1946). [Marion v Grand Trunk W R Co, 510 Mich 942 , 942-943 (2022).] 1 According to plaintiff’s expert, the emergency brake was applied between seven and eight tenths of a second before impact. | 2 | 2 |
Dextrom v. Wexford Countygreen2 sentences2015The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a vehicle engages in “travel” under MCL 691.1402(1) when it parks in, including pulls into and out of, a lane of a highway designated for parking; (2) whether the defendant presented evidence of the design of the highway at issue which, if left unrebutted, would establish that the plaintiff fell in an area of the highway not “designed for vehicular travel” under MCL 691.1402(1); (3) if so, whether the plaintiff produced evidence establishing a question of fact regarding the defendant’s entitlement to immunity under MCL 691.1 2015The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a vehicle engages in “travel” under MCL 691.1402(1) when it parks in, including pulls into and out of, a lane of a highway designated for parking; (2) whether the defendant presented evidence of the design of the highway at issue which, if left unrebutted, would establish that the plaintiff fell in an area of the highway not “designed for vehicular travel” under MCL 691.1402(1); (3) if so, whether the plaintiff produced evidence establishing a question of fact regarding the defendant’s entitlement to immunity under MCL 691.1 | 2 | 2 |
Kincaid v. Cardwellgreen2 sentences2015The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a vehicle engages in “travel” under MCL 691.1402(1) when it parks in, including pulls into and out of, a lane of a highway designated for parking; (2) whether the defendant presented evidence of the design of the highway at issue which, if left unrebutted, would establish that the plaintiff fell in an area of the highway not “designed for vehicular travel” under MCL 691.1402(1); (3) if so, whether the plaintiff produced evidence establishing a question of fact regarding the defendant’s entitlement to immunity under MCL 691.1 2015The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether a vehicle engages in “travel” under MCL 691.1402(1) when it parks in, including pulls into and out of, a lane of a highway designated for parking; (2) whether the defendant presented evidence of the design of the highway at issue which, if left unrebutted, would establish that the plaintiff fell in an area of the highway not “designed for vehicular travel” under MCL 691.1402(1); (3) if so, whether the plaintiff produced evidence establishing a question of fact regarding the defendant’s entitlement to immunity under MCL 691.1 | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Belcher v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
green
1 sentence2017Notably lacking from these entitlement 22 provisions is any arguable reference to or contemplation of a healthcare provider’s entitlement to benefits under the no-fault act. 38 In sum, a review of the plain language of the no-fault act reveals no support for plaintiff’s argument that a healthcare provider possesses a statutory cause of action 38 This conclusion is consistent with Belcher, 409 Mich at 236 , in which this Court considered whether “no-fault insurance benefits [are] to be paid to the surviving dependent(s) of a deceased uninsured motorist[.]” (Quotation marks and citation omitted. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Spruytte v. Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence1995By specifically listing the sanctions which do entitle a prisoner to a hearing the bill should reassure prisoners as to the extent of their protections and reduce complaints with regard to disciplinary actions which fall outside the list. [House Legislative Analysis, HB 4126, May 2, 1983 quoted in Spruytte, supra at 431-432 .] Consistent with the Legislature’s intent to limit hearings regarding minor misconduct charges, we believe the Legislature similarly sought to limit *413 review of decisions regarding minor misconduct charges. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Bell v. Burson
green
2 sentences1978The attribute of present enjoyment is consistent with the rationale of the recipient's dependency and reliance upon the government activity. " Once licenses are issued, as in petitioner's case, their continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood." (Emphasis added.) Bell v Burson, 402 US 535, 539 ; 91 S Ct 1586 ; 29 L Ed 2d 90 (1971). 1978The attribute of present enjoyment is consistent with the rationale of the recipient's dependency and reliance upon the government activity. " Once licenses are issued, as in petitioner's case, their continued possession may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood." (Emphasis added.) Bell v Burson, 402 US 535, 539 ; 91 S Ct 1586 ; 29 L Ed 2d 90 (1971). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.