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 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maynard v. Eaton Corp., Unpublished Decision (6-14-2004)green2 sentences2005See, e.g., Maynard v. Eaton, Marion App. No. 9-03-48, 2004-Ohio-3025 ; Miller v. Miller Miller Accountants, Inc., Richland App. No. 2002-CA-0068; Berdyck v. Shinde (1996), Ottawa App. No. OT-95-018. {¶ 20} In the instant case, the trial court enumerated each of the Kalain factors and found that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy "the standards imposed by R.C. 1343.03 (C)." As discussed below, this conclusion is supported by the record. 2005See, e.g., Maynard v. Eaton, Marion App. No. 9-03-48, 2004-Ohio-3025 ; Miller v. Miller Miller Accountants, Inc., Richland App. No. 2002-CA-0068; Berdyck v. Shinde (1996), Ottawa App. No. OT-95-018. {¶ 20} In the instant case, the trial court enumerated each of the Kalain factors and found that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy "the standards imposed by R.C. 1343.03 (C)." As discussed below, this conclusion is supported by the record. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Detelich v. Gecik
green
2 sentences2016In Detelich v. Gecik (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 793, 797 , 630 N.E.2d 771 , the 11th District found both the first and third prongs of the Kalain test for good faith were uncontroverted; nevertheless, the appellate court found a lack of good faith solely on a finding the appellant failed to rationally evaluate his risk. 2016In Detelich v. Gecik (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 793, 797 , 630 N.E.2d 771 , the 11th District found both the first and third prongs of the Kalain test for good faith were uncontroverted; nevertheless, the appellate court found a lack of good faith solely on a finding the appellant failed to rationally evaluate his risk. | 3 | 2001–2016 |
Allied E. D. v. City of Youngstown, Unpublished Decision (6-24-2004)
neutral
2 sentences2011No. 03-MA-179, 2004-Ohio-3665 (trial court’s reference to “bad faith” can be ignored when it relied on Kalain factors to reach its decision); DiMario v. Aras (Oct. 29, 1999), 1st Dist. 2005Accordingly, because we find that the trial court relied on the "good faith" standard in reaching its decision, we find it unnecessary to reverse and remand for a new hearing merely due to the trial court's reference to "bad faith." See Allied Erecting Dismantling Co. v. City of Youngstown, Mahoning App. No. 03-MA-179, 2004-Ohio-3665 (trial court's reference to "bad faith" can be ignored when it relied on the Kalain factors to reach its decision); DiMario v. Aras (Oct. 29, 1999), Hamilton App. No. C-990107 (trial court's inclusion of "bad faith" language does not require reversal when court ap | 3 | 2005–2011 |
Moskovitz v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center
green
2 sentences2011Pierce at ¶17, citing Moskovitz, 69 Ohio St.3d at 659 . {¶13} Although it appears to address the Kalain factors, taken in its entirety, the order does not reflect the proper “good faith” standard. 2011Pierce at ¶17, citing Moskovitz, 69 Ohio St.3d at 659 . {¶13} Although it appears to address the Kalain factors, taken in its entirety, the order does not reflect the proper “good faith” standard. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Andre v. Case Design, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Although a substantial disparity between an offer and a verdict is one factor circumstantially demonstrating whether a party made a good-faith effort to settle or the adverse party failed to do so * * *." Andre v. Case Design, Inc., 154 Ohio App.3d 323 , 328 . 2006Although a substantial disparity between an offer and a verdict is one factor circumstantially demonstrating whether a party made a good-faith effort to settle or the adverse party failed to do so * * *." Andre v. Case Design, Inc., 154 Ohio App.3d 323 , 328 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |