Formal Opinions
Page 30 of 42
-
Chief State's Attorney Richard Palmer, 1991-038 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
On August 21 and 24, 1990 then Chief State's Attorney John J. Kelly requested an opinion of this office concerning the calculation of longevity benefits for State's Attorney Robert C. Satti.
-
We are in receipt of your letter dated January 2, 1991, wherein you request our opinion on two issues concerning a gun range located on the grounds of the Enfield Community Correctional Institution. The property in question is owned by the State of Connecticut.
-
We are writing in response to your letter dated January 9, 1991, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirement contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-77(d)(2), a statute concerning tuition waives for eligible veterans.
-
Your Department has asked our opinion whether Section 6 of Public Act 00-201 requires that an owner of a residential underground heating oil storage tank system contract with a registered contractor for all work necessary for the removal or replacement of that tank system, and remediation as may be necessary, in order for the Underground Storage Tank Petroleum Clean-Up Account Review Board ("Review Board") to reimburse eligible costs.
-
You have requested an opinion on the following questions: l. Does legislation which changes the terms and conditions of loan forgiveness programs apply to borrowers who signed promissory notes prior to the enactment of such legislation? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, under what circumstances may the terms of the promissory notes be changed; and 3. Which of the changes made in the l986 legislation would apply to pre-l986 borrowers; and 4. For those provisions which do apply, what is the effective date for applying the changed provisions.
-
In your letter of September 9, 1999, you asked us whether an active judge participating in the Judges, Family Support Magistrates, and Compensation Commissioners Retirement System (hereinafter referred to as the judges retirement system) may concurrently receive a benefit from the State Employees Retirement Fund (SERF).
-
By letter dated March 28, 2000 you requested an opinion as to whether Substitute Senate Bill 311, "An Act Concerning The Observance of Martin Luther King Day," if enacted, would unconstitutionally impair a municipality's contracts with its employee collective bargaining units."
-
You have requested a formal opinion of the Attorney General as to "whether a former Deputy Sheriff, former High Sheriff or a State Marshal who resigns from his appointment may continue to collect wage executions they had served while acting in their official capacities."
-
In response to then Commissioner Joxel Garcia's and Chairman Murphy's requests, this is a formal opinion responding to the following questions: 1) Does "phototherapy" as used in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-34, incorporate the use of "laser therapy equipment"?; 2) Does the State Board of Natureopathic Examiners have the authority to expand its scope of practice either with or without the consent of the Commissioner?; 3) Does the Department of Health's use of the 1997 Connecticut Medical Examining Board's "declaratory ruling on use of hair removal" to prohibit a licensed natureopathic physician from employing laser hair removal constitute an unfair restriction of trade?
-
In separate letters to us you requested our advice on two questions concerning indemnification of state marshals. Your first question seeks our opinion on whether state marshals serving capias warrants on behalf of Support Enforcement Services are entitled to indemnification by the State of Connecticut. Your second question asks whether state marshals who train new appointees would be indemnified under Connecticut General Statutes § 4-165.
-
I write in response to your letters, which request my interpretation of Connecticut's General Statutes as they pertain to the legality of same sex marriages in our state. Specifically, you wish to know whether local officials may issue marriage licenses to, or perform marriage ceremonies for, same sex couples.
-
You have asked this Office whether Section 32-664(b) of the Connecticut General Statutes preempts the City of Hartford’s Living Wage Ordinance, Ord. No. 17-99, Art. XII, Sec. 2-761-744, as that ordinance may apply to the operations of the Marriott Hartford Downtown Hotel (the “Hotel”).
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether $2.8 million designated for non-emergency medical transportation and vision benefits under the State-Administered General Assistance program (“SAGA”) in the recently approved state budget may be spent without further legislative action
-
You have asked for an opinion on the following two questions: 1. Does a municipal corporation have the authority to set different mill rates for the taxation of non-vehicle personal property and real property located within the same municipal tax or sub tax district? 2. Does OPM have the authority to pursue a reimbursement, either by direct payment or by offsetting the pending claim of the City of Stamford, for grant claims it has paid based upon Grand List years 1999, 2000 and 2001?
-
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.