The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 19 of 42
-
In your letter of February 11, 1993, you ask whether the State of Connecticut, as a creditor, is disabled from being the assignee of a Connecticut lottery winner because of a regulation which prohibits any assignment of lottery funds.
-
This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1992 in which you relate that the State Employees' Retirement Commission's Subcommittee on Purchase of Service and Related Matters has requested an opinion from this office on the entitlement of Tier I hazardous duty members to obtain retirement credit for a leave of absence for service in the armed forces during peacetime, pursuant to the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act.
-
This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1993 to this office in which you ask whether an active state employee who is currently a member of the State Employees Retirement System is barred from collecting a pension from the Judge's Retirement System while serving as a state employee.
-
You have asked our opinion on several matters pertaining to the extent of the authority of the Municipal Police Training Council (MPTC) to impose mandatory training requirements upon those persons empowered by statute to act in the capacity of a police officer.
-
This is in response to your letter of August 3, 1993 concerning the Health Care Cost Containment Committee (HCCCC) and U.S. Healthcare. Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-259, you have the statutory obligation to establish group hospitalization, medical and surgical insurance coverage for state employees, retirees and others, and are authorized to enter into contracts for that purpose.
-
This is in response to your letter dated July 23, 1993, wherein you asked our opinion concerning the application of Public Act 93-288 (the Act) to cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for certain injured employees and their dependants.
-
This will respond to your request for advice regarding how the Second Injury Fund should proceed on the administration of Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-284b, 31-349(e) and (f) in light of the United States Supreme Court's recent ruling in District of Columbia v. Greater Washington Board of Trade, _U.S._, 113 S. Ct. 580 (1992) (hereinafter referred to as Board of Trade).
-
In your letter of June 5, 1992, you requested our opinion regarding the validity of certain legislation proposed by the Department Of Income Maintenance (DIM). That legislation would require any recipient, or any attorney representing such an individual, who initiates a legal action against a third party for recovery of medical expenses, to report the filing of that suit to the Department of Income Maintenance.
-
In your letter of November 25, 1991, you request our guidance concerning the issue of personal liability of state officials in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hafer v. Melo, 112 S.Ct. 358 (1991). To better respond to the issues posed in your letter, we have framed your inquiry as follows: 1. How does the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hafer v. Melo affect a state official's exposure to personal liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts performed as part of his official duties? 2. Under what circumstances will the state provide for the defense as well as indemnification of a state official when sued personally pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts taken in the course of the performance of his official duties?
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether there exists legislative authority for the Division of Special Revenue to institute a "cash" lotto in addition to the other lottery games currently conducted by, or under the authority of, the Division.
-
The issue addressed in this opinion is whether Special Revenue Investigators may carry firearms.1 Special Revenue Investigators are employed by the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) to investigate violations of the state's legalized gambling laws. In addition, they are statutorily granted the powers of State Police to make arrests for criminal offenses2 arising from the operation or conduct of the State's off-track betting and lottery.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue must conduct a hearing, under the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), prior to revoking a lottery agent's license1 for failure to meet pre-established minimum sales levels for on-line and instant lottery ticket sales.2 Specifically, you inquire as to whether a lottery license is a "license" as that term is contemplated by the UAPA. We also understand that a question is raised as to the practical need for a hearing inasmuch as evidence of sales levels is documented and, presumably, incontestable.
-
This is in reply to your request for our opinion of whether the Central Connecticut State University Alumni Association, Inc. (hereinafter "the Association") is a "foundation" as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-37e(2). Foundation status would subject the Association to the requirements of Chapter 47 of the General Statutes (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§4-37e - 4-37i), including possibly full audits by the State Auditors.
-
This letter is in response to your request of June 2, 1992 for our opinion concerning the licensing of pharmacies which are owned by physicians.
-
By letter of February 4, 1992. you requested an opinion of the Attorney General on the State's ability to pursue statutory support obligations against the community (non-institutionalized) spouse of an institutionalized Medicaid patient, in view of certain provisions contained in the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA), Pub.L. 100-360.