The Office of Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 12 of 41
-
You have requested our advice regarding the scope of the State Building Inspector's authority over local building officials.
-
This is in response to your letter dated December 1, 1993, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation's use of on-call consultants is contrary to the requirements of Sections 13b-20b through 13b-20l of the Connecticut General Statutes. http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
-
Your agency has requested our legal advice concerning the impact of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-38aa et. seq., on eligibility for certain programs of the Department of Social Services.
-
In your letter dated July 7, 1999, you requested the opinion of this Office as to whether the provisions of Public Act 97-148 entitle deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs to receive health care benefits at state expense. Because this Office has also received several other letters inquiring whether various benefits are available to special deputy sheriffs, this opinion will consider special deputy sheriffs' entitlement to health insurance and life insurance, vacation and sick leave, paid holidays, personal leave, longevity pay and participation in the state retirement system.
-
By letter dated February 20, 1990, your predecessor in office, Commissioner Papandrea, requested our opinion on whether the Department of Housing (DOH) is a public housing agency within the purview of the United States Housing Act of 1937.1 The request was prompted by letters from William H. Hernandez, Jr., Manager of the Hartford Office of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").
-
This letter responds to your request for an opinion dated January 31, 1997. Briefly stated, your letter relates that since 1993 the Division's regulations have provided: "A prize to which a purchaser may become entitled shall not be assignable." Conn. Stat. Regs.
-
John R. Shears, Teachers' Retirement Board, 1990-037 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This is in response to your request for advice dated September 13, 1990, in which you request the opinion of this office as to the meaning of the phrase "last employing board of education" as it is used in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 10-183t as amended by 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-342 (hereinafter P.A. 89-342). In addition, you request our opinion on whether the Teachers' Retirement Board may make subsidy payments for health insurance pursuant to Sec. 4(c) of P.A. 89-342 to a board of education other than the "last employing board of education."
-
You recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following question: Whether DRS may disclose information including the names and/or addresses of rebate check payees who, as a result of the U.S. Postal Services or other reasons, did not receive their checks.
-
Honorable John G. Rowland, State Capitol, 1995-028 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This advisory opinion responds to your letter of September 25, 1995. That letter asks whether you may "nominate a sitting associate justice of the [Supreme] Court to succeed Chief Justice Peters if the associate justice in question's name is not on the list of eligible candidates for the position provided ... by the Judicial Selection Commission?"
-
You have requested a formal legal opinion regarding the allocation of costs associated with resident state troopers detailed, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-5, to towns lacking an organized police force
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the continuing legality of the use of merchandise prize wheels at bazaars in Connecticut in the wake of the repeal of the statutes authorizing Las Vegas Nights charitable gambling and the use of money wheels at bazaars. The repealer, enacted during the January 6, 2003 Special Session in 2003 Conn. Pub. Acts (Jan. 6 Spec. Sess.) 03-1, terminated these types of gambling effective January 7, 2003.
-
In your letter of December 20, l989 you requested our opinion on the validity of actions taken at a meeting of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women [hereinafter Commission] which was held in a location other than that specified in the notice of regular meeting distributed by the Commission Chairperson.
-
In your letter of August 9, 1990, you call our attention to the provisions of P.A. 90-261, Sec. 5 and ask our advice with regard to the following two questions: 1. Does Section 5 of the Act apply retroactively, i.e., are all persons incarcerated "as of" October 1, 1990 who meet all other specified criteria, eligible to be considered for parole under the Act. 2. Does the Act permit the Board to consider for parole persons who are already serving their sentences in either Community Release or Community Residence (SHR) programs.
-
We are writing in response to your letter dated February 22, 1990, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirements and waiting periods contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. ee 27-103 and 27-122b, two state statutes concerning veterans' benefits. We are also responding to your oral request, based upon your responsibilities under Conn. Gen. Stat. e27- 102l(c)(4),1 for our opinion on the constitutionality of the residency requirement found in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 27-104, which is contained in Part II of Chapter 506.
-
The issue in this request for opinion is whether the census data, received by the state on January 24, 1991, constitutes "the most recently completed decennial census" within the meaning of Conn. Gen.. Stat. §30-14a.