The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 4 of 42
-
We are in receipt of your letter of June 22, 1994 wherein you call our attention to P.A. 93-219, Sec. 10. In your letter you seek our advice as to what extent, if any, the provisions of this section affect the computation of discharge dates for sentences subject to this statute. Section 10 of this Act provides as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of the general statutes, any person convicted of a crime committed on or after October 1, 1994, shall be subject to supervision by personnel of the department of correction or the board of parole until the expiration of the maximum term or terms for which he was sentenced.
-
This letter is in response to your joint request dated August 11, 1993, for a formal opinion concerning interior design. In particular, you have asked three questions: 1. What effect does the requirement of Conn.Gen.Stat.
-
At the close of the last Legislative session, you posed a number of questions about the Memorandum of Understanding executed by Governor Weicker and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe relating to the operation of video facsimile machines at the Foxwoods Casino on the Tribe's reservation in Ledyard.
-
You have requested the opinion of this office as to whether "it would be possible for the Milford and Hartford Jai Alai to be the subject of wagering at off-track betting (OTB) facilities."
-
We are in receipt of your August 16, 1994 letter, wherein you seek our advice "[i]n anticipation of a possible freedom of information request." The anticipated request, we learned, may seek, inter alia, the addresses of state employees that you have in computer files maintained for state payroll purposes.
-
James A. Gasecki, Sheriffs' Advisory Board, 1994-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In your letter of March 15, 1994, you indicate that in two lawsuits, Kennedy St. George v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00587(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, and Lewis v. Mak, Case No. 5:92-CV-00593(JAC), United States District Court, District of Connecticut, the Attorney General's Office has advised the High Sheriff of Fairfield County and several persons in his department that it would be inappropriate for the Attorney General's Office to continue to represent them in those cases. Consequently, on behalf of the Sheriffs' Advisory Board you have asked for legal advice on the following question: Does the Sheriff's Advisory Board have authority to appropriate funds for the defense of sheriffs, deputy sheriffs and special deputy sheriffs in lawsuits brought against them in their individual capacities after the Attorney General has determined that providing a defense would be inappropriate pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat.
-
This is in response to an October 19, 1993 request for an opinion regarding the prescriptive authority of advanced practice registered nurses ("APRNs"), which request was generated by Marie Hilliard, the Board's Executive Officer. The question is whether APRNs have prescriptive authority in a private practice setting.
-
This is in response to your letter dated June 30, 1994, in which you requested our opinion regarding whether the proposed Safety and Health Regulations, drafted pursuant to Conn. Pub. Acts No. 93-228
-
You have asked our opinion on whether the Connecticut Historical Commission may establish gift shops in historic properties that are maintained by the Commission for the purpose of generating revenues to be used to help defray the costs associated with the operation of the properties.
-
In your letter of April 26, 1994, you asked several questions concerning the responsibility of the Southern New England Telephone Company ("SNET") for state-owned telecommunications equipment that was stolen from a SNET truck. You have informed us that the University of Connecticut (the "University"), which owns the equipment, did not pursue a claim against SNET, and you have asked two questions: First: Does SNET have responsibility for State equipment in its custody?; and, Second: If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is there a valid c1aim against SNET? http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
-
By letter dated August 17, 1993, you have asked our office as to the appropriateness of compensating a public member of the Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, Gwen B. Weltman, for the period September 4, 1992 to June 3, 1993.
-
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.
-
2017-02 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Governor Malloy has requested an opinion, in light of the enactment of Special Act 15-7 and the subsequent developments pursuant to it, of the risks associated with moving forward with the process for authorizing a casino gaming facility operated by an entity jointly owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (MPTN) and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (Mohegan) (collectively, Tribes).
-
Consumer Counsel Healey, Formal Opinion 2011-007,State of Connecticut Attorney General
Opinion regarding Department of Energy and Environmental Protection request that Public Utilities Regulatory Authority suspend proceedings in pending contested proceeding
-
You have asked for a formal opinion whether the State of Connecticut satisfies the requirements of § 413 of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (the Act).