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 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2003 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hansen v. South Dakota Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2003Hansen, 1998 SD 109 at ¶ 23, 584 N.W.2d at 886 (quoting 57 Am.Jur.2d Municipal, County, School & State Tort Liability § 120, at 132-33 (1988)). [¶27.] South Dakota is located in the northern great plains and there will be frequent occasions when the state is subjected to severe bad weather. 2003Hansen, 1998 SD 109 at ¶ 23, 584 N.W.2d at 886 (quoting 57 Am.Jur.2d Municipal, County, School & State Tort Liability § 120, at 132-33 (1988)). [¶27.] South Dakota is located in the northern great plains and there will be frequent occasions when the state is subjected to severe bad weather. | 3 | 4 |
Thompson v. Summersgreen2 sentences1998If there is a readily ascertainable standard by which the action of the government servant may be measured, whether that standard is written *894 or the product of experience, it is not within the discretionary function exception. [¶ 51.] This court has consistently held that "an unexcused violation of a statute enacted to promote safety constitutes negligence per se." Thompson, 1997 SD 103 at ¶ 16 , 567 N.W.2d at 393 (citations omitted). 1998If there is a readily ascertainable standard by which the action of the government servant may be measured, whether that standard is written *894 or the product of experience, it is not within the discretionary function exception. [¶ 51.] This court has consistently held that "an unexcused violation of a statute enacted to promote safety constitutes negligence per se." Thompson, 1997 SD 103 at ¶ 16 , 567 N.W.2d at 393 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Robertson v. City of Topekagreen2 sentences1998Accord Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358 , 644 P.2d 458, 462 (Kan 1982) (stating that focus should not be on status of employee). [18] [¶ 49.] There can be no doubt that Howard performs many discretionary tasks in the course of his employment. 1998Accord Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358 , 644 P.2d 458, 462 (Kan 1982) (stating that focus should not be on status of employee). [18] [¶ 49.] There can be no doubt that Howard performs many discretionary tasks in the course of his employment. | 2 | 2 |
National Bank of South Dakota v. Leirgreen2 sentences1990In National Bank of South Dakota v. Leir, 325 N.W.2d 845, 848 (S.D.1982), we looked to the test established in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895(d) Comment f (1979), to determine what is a discretionary function. (1) The nature and importance of the function that the officer is performing. ... (2) The extent to which passing judgment on the exercise of discretion by the officer will amount necessarily to passing judgment by the court on the conduct of a coordinate branch of government.... (3) The extent to which the imposition of liability would impair the free exercise of his discretion 1990In National Bank of South Dakota v. Leir, 325 N.W.2d 845, 848 (S.D.1982), we looked to the test established in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895(d) Comment f (1979), to determine what is a discretionary function. (1) The nature and importance of the function that the officer is performing.... (2) The extent to which passing judgment on the exercise of discretion by the officer will amount necessarily to passing judgment by the court on the conduct of a coordinate branch of government.... (3) The extent to which the imposition of liability would impair the free exercise of his discretion | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vista Resources, Inc. v. Seagrave Corp.
green
2 sentences1998See also State Tort Liability § 118, at 130: [W]hether the acts giving rise to a complaint are discretionary or ministerial is a factual question depending on the nature of the act and not the care with which it is performed, or the rank or identity of the actor [.] (Emphasis added); United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 813 , 104 S.Ct. 2765 , 2764, 81 L.Ed.2d 660, 674 , reh’g denied, 468 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 26 , 82 L.Ed.2d 919 (1984): First, it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exception applies in a g 1998See also State Tort Liability § 118, at 130: [W]hether the acts giving rise to a complaint are discretionary or ministerial is a *893 factual question depending on the nature of the act and not the care with which it is performed, or the rank or identity of the actor [.] (Emphasis added); United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 813 , 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2764 , 81 L.Ed.2d 660, 674 , reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 26 , 82 L.Ed.2d 919 (1984): First, it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exception applies i | 2 | 1998–1998 |
South Carolina v. United States
green
2 sentences1998See also State Tort Liability § 118, at 130: [W]hether the acts giving rise to a complaint are discretionary or ministerial is a *893 factual question depending on the nature of the act and not the care with which it is performed, or the rank or identity of the actor [.] (Emphasis added); United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 813 , 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2764 , 81 L.Ed.2d 660, 674 , reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 26 , 82 L.Ed.2d 919 (1984): First, it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exception applies i 1998See also State Tort Liability § 118, at 130: [W]hether the acts giving rise to a complaint are discretionary or ministerial is a *893 factual question depending on the nature of the act and not the care with which it is performed, or the rank or identity of the actor [.] (Emphasis added); United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 813 , 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2764 , 81 L.Ed.2d 660, 674 , reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 26 , 82 L.Ed.2d 919 (1984): First, it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exception applies i | 2 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense
green
2 sentences1998See also State Tort Liability § 118, at 130: [W]hether the acts giving rise to a complaint are discretionary or ministerial is a *893 factual question depending on the nature of the act and not the care with which it is performed, or the rank or identity of the actor [.] (Emphasis added); United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 813 , 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2764 , 81 L.Ed.2d 660, 674 , reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 26 , 82 L.Ed.2d 919 (1984): First, it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exception applies i 1998See also State Tort Liability § 118, at 130: [W]hether the acts giving rise to a complaint are discretionary or ministerial is a *893 factual question depending on the nature of the act and not the care with which it is performed, or the rank or identity of the actor [.] (Emphasis added); United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797, 813 , 104 S.Ct. 2755, 2764 , 81 L.Ed.2d 660, 674 , reh'g denied, 468 U.S. 1226 , 105 S.Ct. 26 , 82 L.Ed.2d 919 (1984): First, it is the nature of the conduct, rather than the status of the actor, that governs whether the discretionary function exception applies i | 2 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.