The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 35 of 42
-
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.
-
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).
-
Thank you for your letter requesting my opinion on two questions: (1) whether the Judicial Review Council (“the Council”) has jurisdiction over misconduct committed by acting workers’ compensation commissioners appointed on a per diem basis pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-280(a)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I am writing in response to your request that I review the proposal for needy Connecticut citizens to receive heating oil assistance from Citizens Energy through its agreement with CITGO, a major oil refiner in the United States owned by a company controlled by the Venezuelan government.
-
In a letter dated August 16, 1994, Representative Krawiecki, then House Minority Leader, requested that this office answer two questions regarding an alleged boundary dispute in the Borough of Newtown. We now reply to your attention. 1. His first question asked: What is the appropriate method for taxpayers who assert that the boundaries of a political subdivision of the state are unknown or inadequately marked to compel that entity to conduct a survey of its boundary? 2. His second question asked: Does an individual member of the General Assembly have the power to compel a political subdivision such as a borough to survey its boundary?
-
You have written to this office seeking an opinion on the eligibility of a trustee to vote at a school district meeting. In your letter you relate that the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 7-6 apply to this voters' meeting, which is a type of referendum as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-1(n)(2). Section 7-6 permits "any citizen" to vote who is 18 or older and who is "liable" to the town or district on property assessed at one thousand dollars or more.
-
By letter dated March 3, 1995 you requested an opinion from this office which raises the following question: Has the department of labor's practice of annually transferring those funds in excess of $500,000 from the Employment Security Special Administration Fund to the regular Employment Security Administration Fund, for the purpose of offsetting projected deficits of federal administrative funds in future fiscal years, complied with Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-259 and any other applicable laws?