Still working: heavy queries on the fallback index can run 20-40 seconds.
Your account
Signed in as—
MCP handle—
Plan—
Your details
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 MCP token
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:
Pro — $30/month
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.
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.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
In applying and construing this uniform Act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.
History
Code 1981, § 19-9-101, enacted by Ga. L. 2001, p. 129, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 2012–2019 · leading case: Delgado v. Combs, 724 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
Delgado v. Combs, 724 S.E.2d 436 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6ד15 OCGA § 19-9-101. 16 See OCGA § 19-9-64. 17 Appellate courts in other states have recognized that the UCCJEA might have more accurately used the term “exclusive venue” instead of “subject matter jurisdiction,” [because] subject matter jurisdiction concerns the type of…”
Plummer v. Plummer, 823 S.E.2d 258 (Ga. 2019). · cites it 6דOCGA § 19-9-101 provides: "[i]n applying and construing this uniform Act, consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.”
Kogel v. Kogel, 786 S.E.2d 518 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2דOCGA § 19-9-101; accord Delgado v. Combs, 314 Ga.”
Plummer v. Plummer, 804 S.E.2d 179 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2ד9 OCGA § 19-9-101 provides: “In applying and construing [the UCCJEA], consideration must be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.”
Roach v. Breeden, 777 S.E.2d 689 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2ד” OCGA § 19-9-101. Under both Georgia’s and Tennessee’s versions of the UCCJEA, a “child custody determination” is defined as “a judgment, decree, or' other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child [,]” and the…”
Plummer v. Plummer (Ga. 2019). · cites it 4ד(b) The official comment to UCCJEA § 202, the decisions in other states, and the statutory direction to promote uniformity in interpretations of the UCCJEA, see OCGA § 19-9-101, also support this conclusion.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.