The Office of Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 21 of 41
-
You recently requested our advice regarding the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in Velez v Commissioner of Correction, 250 Conn. 536 (1999). Specifically, you have asked us for clarification with respect to this decision's impact on DOC's procedure for determining when inmates become eligible for release to an approved community correction program pursuant to §18-100c.
-
You recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following questions: 1. Is the filing of a notice and fee by a federally-registered investment adviser under Section 36b-6(d) or 36b-6(e) of the Connecticut General Statutes, for which a letter of acknowledgment is issued by the Department, considered to be a "license or permit to operate a business in this state" within the meaning of Section 31-286a(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act? 2. Is the filing of an annual notice renewal fee by such an investment adviser under Section 36b-6(e) of the Connecticut General Statutes considered the renewal of a license or permit within the meaning of Section 31-286a(b) of the Act? 3. If the response to either of the foregoing questions is yes, is Section 31-286a(b) of the Act preempted because it exceeds what is reserved to the states under Section 307(a) of NSMIA, viz., the filing by federally-registered investment advisers of any documents filed with the SEC? 4. If it is determined that Section 31-286a(b) of the Act is preempted, will the Department be liable for failure to comply with Section 31-286a(b) if it fails to obtain from federally-registered investment advisers sufficient evidence of current compliance with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of Section 31-284?
-
This letter responds to yours of December 29, 1999, in which you ask this office for a formal opinion regarding the applicability and effect of Sections 26 and 45 of Public Act 99-2, June Special Session on tobacco settlement monies. Specifically, you have asked for an opinion "concerning whether Section 45 alters, in any way, the express provisions of Section 26 and, if so, the nature and extent to which it does."
-
Honorable Nancy Wyman, State Comptroller, 2000-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked this Office for an opinion regarding the administration of health insurance benefits for retired state employees receiving workers' compensation payments. In your request, you mention a 1984 Attorney General's opinion [Op. Atty. Gen. No. 84-93, July 24, 1984] that advised the Comptroller that retired state employees receiving workers' compensation payments "must have health insurance maintained at the level provided for active state employees." You also cite a Comptroller policy dated September 16, 1985, which is based on the Attorney General's opinion.
-
In your memorandum dated November 16, 2000, you have in essence asked us for an update of an informal opinion dated March 18, 1991 regarding the maximum permissible deviation from strict mathematical equality courts have allowed in reapportionment plans. Your inquiry comes in connection with the Commissioner of Education's statutory duty under Conn. Gen. Stat. §10-63q to notify each regional board of education and each chief executive officer of each town within a regional school district whether or not representation on the respective regional boards of education is "consistent with federal constitutional standards."
-
Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, Formal Opinion 2008-019, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
This is a formal legal opinion in response to several questions that you raised concerning the ramifications of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
-
In your letter dated August 31, 2000, you asked whether the state can recover interest from the United States Postal Service as a result of the late delivery of certified mail containing tax returns and $140 million in tax payments. In analyzing this issue, it must be noted that any action against the United States Postal Service is, in fact, an action against the United States.
-
Senator George Jepsen, State Capitol, 2001-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In response to your request, this is a formal opinion regarding whether advanced practice registered nurses ("APRNs"), licensed nurse-midwives and physician assistants in Connecticut are authorized to dispense, prescribe and administer the drug mifepristone (brand name "Mifeprex", also known as "RU-486") to women in licensed clinics for the purpose of terminating early pregnancies in a non-surgical manner.
-
Senator George Jepsen, State Capitol, 2001-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In response to your request, this is a formal opinion regarding whether advanced practice registered nurses ("APRNs"), licensed nurse-midwives and physician assistants in Connecticut are authorized to dispense, prescribe and administer the drug mifepristone (brand name "Mifeprex", also known as "RU-486") to women in licensed clinics for the purpose of terminating early pregnancies in a non-surgical manner.
-
The Auditors of Public Accounts have notified this Office of what they consider to be an irregularity in the delegation of purchasing authority from the Department of Information Technology ("DOIT") to the Department of Social Services ("DSS") in connection with the selection of a contractor to administer and develop a management information system for DSS’s consolidated Child Care Assistance Program. Specifically, the Auditors express the opinion that the delegation of authority in question, if permitted under the Connecticut General Statutes, should have been made in writing, rather than given verbally, as appears to have been the case. The Auditors have asked whether this Office agrees with their position and, if so, they have suggested that we inform you.
-
This is in response to your letter dated December 4, 2000, in which you request our opinion on whether judicial marshals who transport prisoners in motor vehicles between various facilities within the State of Connecticut are required to have a special operator's license.
-
On behalf of the Council of Environmental Quality ["CEQ"] you sought this office’s formal opinion as to a number of questions regarding the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act.
-
By letter of June 14, 2000, the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS") requested an opinion from my office as to whether a telephone recording system ("the system"), which the Collections and Enforcement Division ("C&E") of the DRS intends to implement, is in compliance with Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d(a). Your agency also asked several other questions relating to implementation of the system.
-
You have forwarded questions from members of your staff related to operation "Stand Down." Specifically, you inquire whether the agency is authorized to fund Stand Down when it is possible that individuals may attend who are not "veterans," as defined in state statute. You also inquire about the potential liability of your Department in the event of misconduct by a Stand Down program participant in the form of an assault on another Stand Down participant.
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal opinion concerning the effect of the federal Extradition Act, 18 U.S.C. §3182 et. seq., and the Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-560, 114 Stat. 2784 (2000), on the Department of Public Safety’s ability to enforce the provisions of Chapter 534 of the Connecticut General Statutes. Chapter 534 governs the licensing of private security companies that provide private prisoner transportation services for the State of Connecticut and requires a special permit if the individuals providing such services carry firearms in the course of duty.