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 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1934–2008 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Littlegreen2 sentences2007Dobbs, The Law of Torts vol. 1, § 199, at 494 (West 2001); see also Reed v. Little, 209 Mont. 199, 205 , 680 P.2d 937, 941 (1984) (stating that “[u]nder the old contributory negligence rule, a plaintiff could not recover if the plaintiff were negligent in any degree”). 2007Dobbs, The Law of Torts vol. 1, § 199, at 494 (West 2001); see also Reed v. Little, 209 Mont. 199, 205 , 680 P.2d 937, 941 (1984) (stating that “[u]nder the old contributory negligence rule, a plaintiff could not recover if the plaintiff were negligent in any degree”). | 2 | 2 |
Faulconbridge v. Stategreen2 sentences2007However, “[c]omparative negligence compares the conduct of the parties “based on evidence and contributory negligence, as established by reasonable and prudent person standards.’ ” 4 Faulconbridge v. State, 2006 MT 198, ¶ 99 , 333 Mont. 186, ¶ 99 , 142 P.3d 777, ¶ 99 (quoting Lewis v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 2001 MT 145, ¶ 25 , 306 Mont. 37, ¶ 25 , 29 P.3d 1028, ¶ 25 ). 2007However, “[c]omparative negligence compares the conduct of the parties “based on evidence and contributory negligence, as established by reasonable and prudent person standards.’ ” 4 Faulconbridge v. State, 2006 MT 198, ¶ 99 , 333 Mont. 186, ¶ 99 , 142 P.3d 777, ¶ 99 (quoting Lewis v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 2001 MT 145, ¶ 25 , 306 Mont. 37, ¶ 25 , 29 P.3d 1028, ¶ 25 ). | 1 | 1 |
Deeds v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1978As Judge Jameson held in Deeds v. United States, 306 F.Supp. 348, 363 (D.C.Mont. 1969): “While the defense of assumption of risk is usually asserted in employer-employee cases, in Montana the defense has been extended to ‘relationships independent of the master-servant relationship’. 1978As Judge Jameson held in Deeds v. United States, 306 F. Supp. 348, 363 (D.C.Mont. 1969): "While the defense of assumption of risk is usually asserted in employer-employee cases, in Montana the defense has been extended to `relationships independent of the master-servant relationship'. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co.
green
2 sentences2007However, “[c]omparative negligence compares the conduct of the parties “based on evidence and contributory negligence, as established by reasonable and prudent person standards.’ ” 4 Faulconbridge v. State, 2006 MT 198, ¶ 99 , 333 Mont. 186, ¶ 99 , 142 P.3d 777, ¶ 99 (quoting Lewis v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 2001 MT 145, ¶ 25 , 306 Mont. 37, ¶ 25 , 29 P.3d 1028, ¶ 25 ). 2007However, “[c]omparative negligence compares the conduct of the parties “based on evidence and contributory negligence, as established by reasonable and prudent person standards.’ ” 4 Faulconbridge v. State, 2006 MT 198, ¶ 99 , 333 Mont. 186, ¶ 99 , 142 P.3d 777, ¶ 99 (quoting Lewis v. Puget Sound Power & Light Co., 2001 MT 145, ¶ 25 , 306 Mont. 37, ¶ 25 , 29 P.3d 1028, ¶ 25 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Danculovich v. Brown
green
2 sentences1983Damages resulting from willful and wanton misconduct are not ‘damages for negligence’ as that term is used in Sec. 1-1-109.” 593 P.2d at 194 . 1983Damages resulting from willful and wanton misconduct are not `damages for negligence' as that term is used in § 1-1-109." 593 P.2d at 194 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Sorensen v. Allred
green
2 sentences1983(Sorenson v. Allred (1980), 112 Cal.App.3d 717 , 169 Cal.Rptr. 441 .) In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the contributory-negligence rule and the willful-misconduct rule together amount to a rule of comparative fault under which the lesser fault does not bar the greater. 1983(Sorenson v. Allred (1980), 112 Cal.App.3d 717 , 169 Cal.Rptr. 441 .) In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the contributory-negligence rule and the willful-misconduct rule together amount to a rule of comparative fault under which the lesser fault does not bar the greater. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Southern Pac. Transp. Co. v. State of California
green
2 sentences1983Co. v. State (1981), 115 Cal. App.3d 116, 121 , 171 Cal. Rptr. 187 , 191 concurred with Sorensen, supra: "The second unresolved issue in Li, the role of willful misconduct under comparative negligence, was recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in the Fifth District, which concluded that willful misconduct does not preclude application of the comparative-negligence rule. ( Sorensen v. Allred (1980) 112 Cal. App.3d 717 , 169 Cal. Rptr. 441 .) In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the contributory-negligence rule and the willful-misconduct rule together amount to a rule of comparat 1983Co. v. State (1981), 115 Cal. App.3d 116, 121 , 171 Cal. Rptr. 187 , 191 concurred with Sorensen, supra: "The second unresolved issue in Li, the role of willful misconduct under comparative negligence, was recently addressed by the Court of Appeal in the Fifth District, which concluded that willful misconduct does not preclude application of the comparative-negligence rule. ( Sorensen v. Allred (1980) 112 Cal. App.3d 717 , 169 Cal. Rptr. 441 .) In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that the contributory-negligence rule and the willful-misconduct rule together amount to a rule of comparat | 1 | 1983–1983 |
DeVerniero v. Eby
green
2 sentences1974Concerning the first appeal issue, plaintiff relies heavily on DeVerniero v. Eby, 159 Mont. 146, 148 , 496 P.2d 290 , in contending that a contributory negligence instruction was improper under the facts of the instant case. 1974Concerning the first appeal issue, plaintiff relies heavily on DeVerniero v. Eby, 159 Mont. 146, 148 , 496 P.2d 290 , in contending that a contributory negligence instruction was improper under the facts of the instant case. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Hallyburton v. Burke County Fair Ass'n
green
2 sentences1934J. 108; Peterson v. Conlan , above; Hallyburton v. Burke County Fair Assn., 119 N. C. 526 , 26 S. E. 114 , 38 L. 1934J. 108; Peterson v. Conlan , above; Hallyburton v. Burke County Fair Assn., 119 N. C. 526 , 26 S. E. 114 , 38 L. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.