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.
6 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Valerie D.green2 sentences2020See In re Jacob W., supra, 330 Conn. 762–64; In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492 , 526–35, 613 A.2d 748 (1992); In re Carla C., 167 Conn. App. 248 , 272–80, 143 A.3d 677 (2016). 12 In his reply brief, the respondent clarifies that he is not ‘‘contend[ing] that the interference exception applies to all cases where the petitioner claims that a parent has failed to rehabilitate pursuant to . . . § 17a-112 (j). 2020See In re Jacob W., supra, 330 Conn. 762–64; In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492 , 526–35, 613 A.2d 748 (1992); In re Carla C., 167 Conn. App. 248 , 272–80, 143 A.3d 677 (2016). 12 In his reply brief, the respondent clarifies that he is not ‘‘contend[ing] that the interference exception applies to all cases where the petitioner claims that a parent has failed to rehabilitate pursuant to . . . § 17a-112 (j). | 2 | 2 |
In re Alexander C.green2 sentences2022Compare id. (interference exception was inapplicable where actions of petitioner did not render inevitable lack of relationship between incarcerated respondent father and child because lack of relationship occurred several years before alleged interference by petitioner), and In re November H., supra, 202 Conn. App. 134 (same), and In re Alexander C., 67 Conn. App. 417 , 424–25, 787 A.2d 608 (2001) (interference exception was inapplicable because, although child was placed in foster care within days of birth, incarcerated respon- dent father, rather than petitioner, created circum- stances tha 2022Compare id. (interference exception was inapplicable where actions of petitioner did not render inevitable lack of relationship between incarcerated respondent father and child because lack of relationship occurred several years before alleged interference by petitioner), and In re November H., supra, 202 Conn. App. 134 (same), and In re Alexander C., 67 Conn. App. 417 , 424–25, 787 A.2d 608 (2001) (interference exception was inapplicable because, although child was placed in foster care within days of birth, incarcerated respon- dent father, rather than petitioner, created circum- stances tha | 2 | 2 |
In re Alexander C.green2 sentences2022Compare id. (interference exception was inapplicable where actions of petitioner did not render inevitable lack of relationship between incarcerated respondent father and child because lack of relationship occurred several years before alleged interference by petitioner), and In re November H., supra, 202 Conn. App. 134 (same), and In re Alexander C., 67 Conn. App. 417 , 424–25, 787 A.2d 608 (2001) (interference exception was inapplicable because, although child was placed in foster care within days of birth, incarcerated respon- dent father, rather than petitioner, created circum- stances tha 2022Compare id. (interference exception was inapplicable where actions of petitioner did not render inevitable lack of relationship between incarcerated respondent father and child because lack of relationship occurred several years before alleged interference by petitioner), and In re November H., supra, 202 Conn. App. 134 (same), and In re Alexander C., 67 Conn. App. 417 , 424–25, 787 A.2d 608 (2001) (interference exception was inapplicable because, although child was placed in foster care within days of birth, incarcerated respon- dent father, rather than petitioner, created circum- stances tha | 2 | 2 |
Pennekamp v. Floridagreen2 sentences2020See Craig v. Harney, supra, 331 U.S. 373 , 376; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 334, 350 , 66 S. Ct. 1029 , 90 L. 2020See Craig v. Harney, supra, 331 U.S. 373 , 376; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 334, 350 , 66 S. Ct. 1029 , 90 L. | 2 | 2 |
In re Carla C.green2 sentences2020See In re Jacob W., supra, 330 Conn. 762–64; In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492 , 526–35, 613 A.2d 748 (1992); In re Carla C., 167 Conn. App. 248 , 272–80, 143 A.3d 677 (2016). 12 In his reply brief, the respondent clarifies that he is not ‘‘contend[ing] that the interference exception applies to all cases where the petitioner claims that a parent has failed to rehabilitate pursuant to . . . § 17a-112 (j). 2020See In re Jacob W., supra, 330 Conn. 762–64; In re Valerie D., 223 Conn. 492 , 526–35, 613 A.2d 748 (1992); In re Carla C., 167 Conn. App. 248 , 272–80, 143 A.3d 677 (2016). 12 In his reply brief, the respondent clarifies that he is not ‘‘contend[ing] that the interference exception applies to all cases where the petitioner claims that a parent has failed to rehabilitate pursuant to . . . § 17a-112 (j). | 1 | 2 |
Gershon v. Backgreen1 sentence2020See Gershon v. Back, 201 Conn. App. 225, 244 , A.3d (2020) (‘‘[t]he plenary standard of review applies to questions of law’’). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C.
green
2 sentences2020We decline to address this claim, however, because ‘‘we consider an argument inadequately briefed when it is delineated only in the reply brief.’’ Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 298 Conn. 371 , 378 n.6, 3 A.3d 892 (2010). 11 In the cases cited by the respondent in his appellate briefs, our appellate courts discussed the interference exception in the context of the no ongoing parent-child relationship ground for termination of parental rights. 2020We decline to address this claim, however, because ‘‘we consider an argument inadequately briefed when it is delineated only in the reply brief.’’ Hurley v. Heart Physicians, P.C., 298 Conn. 371 , 378 n.6, 3 A.3d 892 (2010). 11 In the cases cited by the respondent in his appellate briefs, our appellate courts discussed the interference exception in the context of the no ongoing parent-child relationship ground for termination of parental rights. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Jessica M.
green
2 sentences2017We recognize that the child's positive feelings for the noncustodial parent generally are determinative; In re Jessica M. , supra, 217 Conn. at 467-68, 470 , 586 A.2d 597 ; except where the child is too young to have any discernible feelings, in which case the positive feelings of the parent for the child play a role in the determination. 2017We recognize that the child's positive feelings for the noncustodial parent generally are determinative; In re Jessica M. , supra, 217 Conn. at 467-68, 470 , 586 A.2d 597 ; except where the child is too young to have any discernible feelings, in which case the positive feelings of the parent for the child play a role in the determination. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Hamill v. Neikind
green
1 sentence1982Local 1219 v. Connecticut Labor Relations Board, 171 Conn. 342 , 370 A.2d 959 (1976). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
LOCAL 1219 v. Connecticut Labor Relations Board
green
1 sentence1982Local 1219 v. Connecticut Labor Relations Board, 171 Conn. 342 , 370 A.2d 959 (1976). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.