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.
5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Abele v. Sawyergreen1 sentence2022The correct remedy here was exactly as the trial court did, which was to impose a constructive trust because it is imposed as “an equitable remedy in a situation where there is a wrongful taking of the property of another.” Abele v. Sawyer, 750 So. 2d 70, 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Rush v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See Gessa v. Manor Care of Fla., Inc., 4 So.3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (finding severability where contract capped noneconomic damages, precluded punitive damages, and had no severability clause), quashed, 86 So.3d 484 (Fla.2011); Stiehl (finding sever-ability where contract capped noneconomic damages, precluded punitive damages, and had a nonseverability clause). 2011See Gessa v. Manor Care of Fla., Inc., 4 So.3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (finding severability where contract capped noneconomic damages, precluded punitive damages, and had no severability clause), quashed, 86 So.3d 484 (Fla.2011); Stiehl (finding sever-ability where contract capped noneconomic damages, precluded punitive damages, and had a nonseverability clause). | 1 | 1 |
Gessa v. Manor Care of Florida, Inc.green2 sentences2011See Gessa v. Manor Care of Fla., Inc., 4 So.3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (finding severability where contract capped noneconomic damages, precluded punitive damages, and had no severability clause), quashed, 86 So.3d 484 (Fla.2011); Stiehl (finding sever-ability where contract capped noneconomic damages, precluded punitive damages, and had a nonseverability clause). 2011See Gessa v. Manor Care of Fla., Inc., 4 So.3d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (finding severability where contract capped noneconomic damages, precluded punitive damages, and had no severability clause), quashed, 86 So.3d 484 (Fla.2011); Stiehl (finding sever-ability where contract capped noneconomic damages, precluded punitive damages, and had a nonseverability clause). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sitomer v. Orlan
green
1 sentence2022The Fourth District Court 16 of Appeal in Sitomer held that “the nonseverability doctrine preserves the entireties status of funds even after one spouse renames an account or transfers money from it without the consent of the other.” Id. at 1114 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
LOCAL NO. 234, ETC. v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Under Florida law, to determine whether the Agreement permits severance of the remedial limitations provision, we apply the test set out in Local No. 234 v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So.2d 818 , 821-22 (Fla.1953). 2009Under Florida law, to determine whether the Agreement permits severance of the remedial limitations provision, we apply the test set out in Local No. 234 v. Henley & Beckwith, Inc., 66 So.2d 818 , 821-22 (Fla.1953). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Zobel v. Williams
green
2 sentences2007This conclusion is supported by the United States Supreme Court decision in Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 , 102 S.Ct. 2309 , 72 L.Ed.2d 672 (1981), in which the Court, although ultimately remanding the determination to the Alaska state courts, noted with regard to a nonseverability clause that it “need not speculate as to the intent of the Alaska Legislature; the legislation expressly provides that the invalidation of any portion of the statute renders the whole invalid.” Id. at 65 , 102 S.Ct. 2309 . 2007This conclusion is supported by the United States Supreme Court decision in Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 , 102 S.Ct. 2309 , 72 L.Ed.2d 672 (1981), in which the Court, although ultimately remanding the determination to the Alaska state courts, noted with regard to a nonseverability clause that it “need not speculate as to the intent of the Alaska Legislature; the legislation expressly provides that the invalidation of any portion of the statute renders the whole invalid.” Id. at 65 , 102 S.Ct. 2309 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Lyons'estate
green
1 sentence1995The leading case of In re Lyons' Estate, 90 So.2d 39 (Fla. 1955), involved two joint bank accounts opened in the names of both husband and wife. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.