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 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., In re Comm’r of Public Safety, 735 N.W.2d 706, 712-13 (Minn. 2007). 2010Id. at 713 . -21- In Underdahl II, the court returned to the issue of a DUI defendant’s right to compel discovery of the source code for the Minnesota model of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. 767 N.W.2d 677 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Housegreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., House, 295 S.W.3d 825 ; State v. Bastos, 985 So.2d 37 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence2013The Supreme Court stated only that the exculpatory value of the recording was “tenuous”and that the evidence was “probably of marginal exculpatory value.” Id. at 918 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Sensing
green
1 sentence2010Sensing expressly declined to hold “that test results are infallible or conclusive.” 843 S.W.2d at 418 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence2010First, as regards a DUI conviction based upon the defendant having actually driven the vehicle, it is not necessary that a motor vehicle be operational and capable of being driven at the time a DUI defendant is arrested. 1 In so holding, we distinguish our decision from that in State v. Carter, 889 S.W.2d 231 (Tenn. Crim. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Bastos
green
1 sentence2010See, e.g., House, 295 S.W.3d 825 ; State v. Bastos, 985 So.2d 37 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Underdahl
green
1 sentence2010Id. at 713 . -21- In Underdahl II, the court returned to the issue of a DUI defendant’s right to compel discovery of the source code for the Minnesota model of the Intoxilyzer 5000EN. 767 N.W.2d 677 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Greenwood
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 531 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Walker
green
1 sentence2001In Walker , the Court noted that “[ejven where the delay [in the execution of a criminal judgment] results from simple negligence or oversight, the courts have recognized that relief from the sentence might be available on due process grounds.” 905 S.W.2d at 555 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Newton
green
2 sentences1996Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984); State v. Newton, 291 Or. 788 , 636 P.2d 393 (1981); Scarborough v. State, 261 So.2d 475 (Miss.1972). 1996Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984); State v. Newton, 291 Or. 788 , 636 P.2d 393 (1981); Scarborough v. State, 261 So.2d 475 (Miss.1972). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Scarborough v. State
green
2 sentences1996Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984); State v. Newton, 291 Or. 788 , 636 P.2d 393 (1981); Scarborough v. State, 261 So.2d 475 (Miss.1972). 1996Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984); State v. Newton, 291 Or. 788 , 636 P.2d 393 (1981); Scarborough v. State, 261 So.2d 475 (Miss. 1972). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sites v. State
green
2 sentences1996Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984); State v. Newton, 291 Or. 788 , 636 P.2d 393 (1981); Scarborough v. State, 261 So.2d 475 (Miss.1972). 1996Sites v. State, 300 Md. 702 , 481 A.2d 192 (1984); State v. Newton, 291 Or. 788 , 636 P.2d 393 (1981); Scarborough v. State, 261 So.2d 475 (Miss.1972). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.