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 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Regency Group, Inc. v. McDanielsgreen2 sentences2025See also Miller v. Roberts, 682 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“The general rule is that where an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, arbitration is required only of those controversies or disputes which the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.”); Regency Grp., Inc. v. McDaniels, 647 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“Only those claims which the parties have agreed are arbitrable may be subject to arbitration.”). 2011See Seaboard Coast Line, 690 F.2d at 1352 (holding that the federal policy favoring arbitration “cannot serve to stretch a contract beyond the scope originally intended by the parties”); see also Miller v. Roberts, 682 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“The general rule is that where an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, arbitration is required only of those controversies or disputes which the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.”); Regency Group, Inc., 647 So.2d at 193 (“Only those claims which the parties have agreed are arbitrable may be subject to arbitration.”). | 2 | 2 |
Miller v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2025See also Miller v. Roberts, 682 So. 2d 691, 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“The general rule is that where an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, arbitration is required only of those controversies or disputes which the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.”); Regency Grp., Inc. v. McDaniels, 647 So. 2d 192, 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (“Only those claims which the parties have agreed are arbitrable may be subject to arbitration.”). 2011See Seaboard Coast Line, 690 F.2d at 1352 (holding that the federal policy favoring arbitration “cannot serve to stretch a contract beyond the scope originally intended by the parties”); see also Miller v. Roberts, 682 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“The general rule is that where an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, arbitration is required only of those controversies or disputes which the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.”); Regency Group, Inc., 647 So.2d at 193 (“Only those claims which the parties have agreed are arbitrable may be subject to arbitration.”). | 2 | 2 |
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company v. Trailer Train Companygreen2 sentences2011See Seaboard Coast Line, 690 F.2d at 1352 (holding that the federal policy favoring arbitration “cannot serve to stretch a contract beyond the scope originally intended by the parties”); see also Miller v. Roberts, 682 So.2d 691, 692 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (“The general rule is that where an arbitration agreement exists between the parties, arbitration is required only of those controversies or disputes which the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.”); Regency Group, Inc., 647 So.2d at 193 (“Only those claims which the parties have agreed are arbitrable may be subject to arbitration.”). 1999See Seaboard Coast Line, 690 F.2d at 1352 (holding that the federal policy favoring arbitration "cannot serve to stretch a contract beyond the scope originally intended by the parties"); see also Tracer Research Corp. v. National Envtl. | 2 | 2 |
Seifert v. US Home Corp.green2 sentences2025“A natural corollary of this rule is that no party may be forced to 5 submit a dispute to arbitration that the party did not intend and agree to arbitrate.” Seifert, 750 So. 2d at 636 . 2025See Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla. 1999) (“A natural corollary of this rule is that no party may be forced to submit a dispute to arbitration that the party did not intend and agree to arbitrate.”); Marcus v. Fla. Bagels, LLC, 112 So. 3d 631, 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). | 1 | 3 |
Marcus v. Florida Bagels, LLCgreen1 sentence2025See Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So. 2d 633, 636 (Fla. 1999) (“A natural corollary of this rule is that no party may be forced to submit a dispute to arbitration that the party did not intend and agree to arbitrate.”); Marcus v. Fla. Bagels, LLC, 112 So. 3d 631, 633 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamstersgreen1 sentence2024“A natural corollary of this rule is that no party may be forced to submit a dispute to arbitration that the party did not intend and agree to arbitrate.” Seifert, 750 So. 2d at 636 ; cf. Granite Rock Co., 561 U.S. at 303 (explaining that “the presumption favoring arbitration . . . derives its legitimacy from[] a judicial conclusion that arbitration of a particular dispute is what the parties intended because their express agreement . . . is legally enforceable and best construed to encompass the dispute”). | 1 | 1 |
Schaffer v. Pulidogreen1 sentence2001See Schaffer v. Pulido, 492 So.2d 1157, 1157-58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)(holding that invited error doctrine precluded plaintiff from complaining of both a jury instruction given at his request and the trial court's use of a verdict form which he submitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.