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.
7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratoriesgreen1 sentence2022The touchstone of that inquiry is whether the manufacturer’s conduct was reasonable. “[I]n a failure-to-warn case, the element of reasonableness, which is generally a negligence principle, comes into play in determining whether a manufacturer failed to give a necessary warning or an adequate warning.” Whelan, 242 N.J. at 333; see also Feldman v. Lederle Labs., 97 N.J. 429, 451 (1984) (“[O]nce the defendant’s knowledge of the defect is imputed, strict liability analysis becomes almost identical to negligence analysis in its focus on the reasonableness of the defendant’s conduct.”). | 1 | 1 |
Kindig It Design, Inc. v. Creative Controls, Inc.green1 sentence2019See, e.g., Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 252 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting "[w]hile analyzing a defendant's conduct under the Zippo sliding scale of interactivity may help frame the jurisdictional inquiry in some cases . . . it does not amount to a separate framework for analyzing internet-based jurisdiction." Instead, "traditional statutory and constitutional principles remain the touchstone of the inquiry.") (citation omitted); Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546, 550 (7th Cir. 2004) ("Premising personal jurisdiction on the maintenance of a website, without requiring some lev | 1 | 1 |
Pamela J. Jennings, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of James R. Jennings v. Ac Hydraulic A/sgreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 252 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting "[w]hile analyzing a defendant's conduct under the Zippo sliding scale of interactivity may help frame the jurisdictional inquiry in some cases . . . it does not amount to a separate framework for analyzing internet-based jurisdiction." Instead, "traditional statutory and constitutional principles remain the touchstone of the inquiry.") (citation omitted); Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546, 550 (7th Cir. 2004) ("Premising personal jurisdiction on the maintenance of a website, without requiring some lev | 1 | 1 |
Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Tim Walker, Docket No. 04-3924-Cvgreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 252 (2d Cir. 2007) (noting "[w]hile analyzing a defendant's conduct under the Zippo sliding scale of interactivity may help frame the jurisdictional inquiry in some cases . . . it does not amount to a separate framework for analyzing internet-based jurisdiction." Instead, "traditional statutory and constitutional principles remain the touchstone of the inquiry.") (citation omitted); Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546, 550 (7th Cir. 2004) ("Premising personal jurisdiction on the maintenance of a website, without requiring some lev | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rose
green
1 sentence2014On June 8, 2011, approximately two weeks before the start of defendant's trial, the Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Rose, 206 N.J. 141 (2011), stating that [i]n readdressing the other bad acts categories of res gestae evidence, we use this opportunity to direct trial courts to make the Rules of Evidence the touchstone for the analysis of all such evidence. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kneipp v. Tedder
green
2 sentences2004It can arise where: (1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct; (2) the state actor acted in willful disregard for the safety of the plaintiff; (3) there existed some relationship between the state and the plaintiff; (4) the state actors used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed for the third party’s crime to occur. [Kneipp v. Tedder, supra, 95 F.3d at 1208 .] In the end, the touchstone for the analysis for this exception has been whether the state actors acted with “deliberate indifference”. 2004Kneipp v. Tedder, supra, 95 F.3d at 1208 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Garcia
green
2 sentences1994Cf. State v. Garcia, 131 N.J. 67, 81 , 618 A. 2d 326 (1993) (disclosure of police surveillance site requires a substantial showing of need); State v. Cusick, 219 N.J. 1994Cf. State v. Garcia, 131 N.J. 67, 81 , 618 A. 2d 326 (1993) (disclosure of police surveillance site requires a substantial showing of need); State v. Cusick, 219 N.J. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Cusick
green
1 sentence1994Cf. State v. Garcia, 131 N.J. 67, 81 , 618 A. 2d 326 (1993) (disclosure of police surveillance site requires a substantial showing of need); State v. Cusick, 219 N.J. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Whitfield v. Whitfield
green
2 sentences1992Id. at 45 , 535 A. 2d 986 . 1992Id. at 45 , 535 A. 2d 986 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Cardwell v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1975This decision is reached in deference to the principle that "insofar as Fourth Amendment protection extends to a motor vehicle, it is the right to privacy that is the touchstone of our inquiry." Cardwell v. Lewis, supra, 417 U.S. at 591 , 94 S.Ct. at 2470 . 1975This decision is reached in deference to the principle that "insofar as Fourth Amendment protection extends to a motor vehicle, it is the right to privacy that is the touchstone of our inquiry." Cardwell v. Lewis, supra, 417 U.S. at 591 , 94 S.Ct. at 2470 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.