The Office of the Attorney General is currently closed to the Public. Click here for more information

1995 Formal Opinions

Page 1 of 3

  • Gloria Schaffer, Department of Consumer Protection, 1995-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    We are responding to your request for advice as to how a December 8, 1994 informal opinion to former Commissioner Nicholas Cioffi regarding the Department of Public Safety Division of Fire, Emergency, and Building Services' civil regulatory jurisdiction over certain activities on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation ("Reservation") would "impact the services" your agency provides with respect to boxing on the Reservation.

  • Harry J. Hartley, University of Connecticut, 1995-012 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    n your letter of November 7, 1995, you asked several questions concerning the relationship between the University of Connecticut and the University of Connecticut Foundation. You have asked three specific questions. First: May University employees work under the direction of the Foundation, with the Foundation reimbursing the University for the salary and fringe benefits of these employees? Second: May the Foundation utilize money received from the University for fund-raising services to repay its obligations (including salaries) to the University? Third: May the University provide services, such as computer support services, to the Foundation at no cost?

  • Hon. John G. Rowland, Executive Chambers, 1995-008 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    We have received your letters of February 8, 1995, soliciting our opinion on issues concerning temporary gubernatorial appointments arising from the application of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-7(b)(2). Specifically, you both ask whether a "designate" under § 4-7(b)(2) must be sworn in pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-1 before exercising the powers and duties of the office.

  • Hon. John G. Rowland, State of Connecticut, 1995-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    You have asked this office whether, upon passage of Senate Bill No. 158, authorizing the creation of a "commission on the future of gaming in Connecticut," the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe (if they commence casino operations) would continue to be obligated to the terms of the Memorandums of Understanding ("MOUs") related to the operation of video facsimile machines at tribal casinos. You have also asked about the State's ability to enforce its agreement with the Tribes, and its ability to prevent any loss of revenue from the monthly contributions made by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe under the agreement.

  • Hon. John J. Armstrong, Department of Correction, 1995-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    In your letter of December 7, 1994 you seek our advice with regard to two questions related to the provisions of P.A. 93-219. 1. Is an inmate who is subject to Section 10 of the Act and who under your letter of November 23 must serve the full term imposed by the court unreduced by any good time credits and who is in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction on the date he or she historically would have been discharged entitled to be mandatorily paroled by the Parole Board and then subject to its supervision for the remainder of the full term imposed by the sentencing court? 2. For those persons who are serving sentences for which there is no parole eligibility, but who may be eligible for community release under the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-100c, are they entitled to be mandatorily transferred to community supervision on the date they historically would have been discharged?

  • Hon. John P. Burke, Department of Banking, 1995-024 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    You have asked this office for an opinion regarding your authority to approve and to regulate a branch (the "Branch") of a Connecticut bank (the "Bank") to be established in Foxwoods Casino (the "Casino") on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation (the "Reservation") in Ledyard, Connecticut.

  • Hon. Mortimer A. Gelston, Connecticut Siting Council, 1995-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    You have requested our opinion regarding the legal status of a tower to be used by WHUS, the radio station funded by student activity fees at the University of Connecticut at Storrs (the "University"). Specifically, you have asked whether the tower, on which the Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (the "State Police") intends to place telecommunications equipment, is "owned or operated by the state" within the meaning of the Public Utility Environmental Standards Act ("PUESA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50i(a)(6).

  • Hon. Mortimer A. Gelston, Connecticut Siting Council, 1995-002 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    You have requested our opinion regarding the scope of the Connecticut Siting Council's (the "Council") jurisdiction over the placement of an FM radio station antenna on an existing community antenna television tower.

  • Hon. Mortimer A. Gelston, Connecticut Siting Council, 1995-029 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    You have requested our opinion regarding the jurisdiction of the Connecticut Siting Council (the "Council") in connection with the proposal of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") to complete the electrification of the Northeast Corridor rail line from New Haven, Connecticut to Boston, Massachusetts (the "Project"). Specifically, you have asked whether the Federal Railroad Administration (the "FRA") has preempted the Council by its oversight and involvement in the Project, including in particular its preparation and issuance of an environmental impact statement.

  • Honorable John G. Rowland, Hartford, Connecticut 06106, 1995-014 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    On February 17, 1995, you requested an opinion of this office on whether or not seven individuals appointed by former Governor Weicker are qualified to serve as members of the Employees' Review Board, and the terms they can serve if they are qualified.

  • 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?"

  • Honorable Joyce A. Thomas, Department of Social Services, 1995-026 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the current reimbursement system for wheelchair accessible livery under the Department of Social Services (DSS) regulations enacted in 1989.

  • Honorable Joyce Thomas, Department of Social Services, 1995-031 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    On September 25, 1995, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion concerning the regulation of invalid coach and wheelchair livery services within the State of Connecticut. The Office of Emergency Medical Services ("OEMS") regulates invalid coach service as an ambulance service pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-180. The Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulates the transportation of livery service for the elderly and the handicapped pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §13b-105. Subsequent to the issuance of the opinion, a question has arisen regarding the distinction between invalid coach and wheelchair livery service, and therefore, whether the regulation of a particular transportation service falls under the jurisdiction of OEMS or DOT.

  • Honorable Kenneth Kirschner, Commissioner of Public Safety, 1995-025 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    Recently, it has come to the attention of this office that certain retail firearms dealers have advertised that customers may purchase handguns until October 1, 1995 without a permit to carry such weapons, and without an eligibility certificate. This "policy" is apparently prompted by their interpretation of the interplay between Connecticut General Statutes §§ 29-33 and 29-36j. The purpose of this letter is to (1) clarify the relationship between these two statutes, and (2) afford the Department of Public Safety appropriate guidance concerning the proper implementation of the statutes' provisions.

  • Honorable Louis S. Goldberg, Department of Administrative Services, 1995-022 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

    You have asked for our opinion on whether the provisions of Special Act 95-12 preclude you from entering into a contract with Corporate Express, a private corporation, for a statewide direct delivery service for office supplies.