The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 6 of 42
-
You have requested our advice on whether Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) events can be held in Connecticut under existing boxing laws
-
Your staff has explained the background as follows. A number of months ago, a feral dog pack was found roaming around the Southern Connecticut State University area
-
This letter responds to your request for an opinion regarding the legality of proposed legislation to extend the State’s ban on smoking in public places to the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun Casinos (the “Casinos”).
-
Public Act 07-161 requires municipalities to continue to provide survivor benefits to the surviving spouse of a paid police officer or firefighter who dies in the line of duty even after the spouse remarries.
-
The property in question, comprised of 14.49 acres together with the improvements thereon, including the Theatre building and a two story house that had long been utilized as office space
-
In anticipation of heavy voter turnout in Tuesday's Presidential election, you have asked for my opinion as to whether the voting hours can be extended to accommodate an unusually large number of voters
-
Your department has asked whether the state is responsible for paying increases to the minimum wage when state contracts are silent as to which party will absorb the cost associated with such increases
-
You ask whether an individual who is an officer or employee of a tenant of the Hartford Regional Market may serve as a "public member" of the Authority's board of directors
-
Robert Werner, Division Of Special Revenue, 1992-034 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have sought the advice of this office relating to the operation of an off-track betting system in the State of Connecticut. Specifically, you inquire whether, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-167a(b), the operation of "an OTB betting branch facility in the Hartford Jai Alai Fronton would violate the proscription against locating a 'Facility' within 35 miles of the location of the Teletheater in the Town of Windsor Locks ... ?"
-
We are writing in response to your February 25, 1992, and February 27, 1992, requests for an Opinion on the constitutionality of proposed measures before the General Assembly which would impose durational residency requirements upon persons seeking General Assistance welfare benefits in the State of Connecticut. Specifically, you ask: 1) whether the State may deny General Assistance benefits to persons not satisfying a durational residency requirement; 2) whether the State may restrict General Assistance benefits for newcomers to a lower level of support than is available to longer term residents of Connecticut; and 3) whether any such restriction tied to the level of welfare support available in newcomers' previous states of domicile, is permissible.
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the confidentiality of information that the Department maintains on individuals with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and hepatitis B.
-
This letter is in response to your request, dated June 10, 1992, for our opinion concerning access by researchers to identifiable bail commission information.
-
You have requested the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether you have the authority to provide state reimbursement to a town that fails to meet the requirement that two-thirds of the employable general assistance recipients participate in a work or education program in accordance with § 17-281a(a). Conn.Gen.Stat. § 17-281a(f); § 17-292.
-
In your letter of February 27, 1992, you posed the question whether the filing of an annual report by a trustee under mortgage may be waived by the Banking Commissioner.
-
This letter is in response to your memorandum of August 4, 1992, in which you requested our opinion concerning the meaning and enforcement of Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-112. We understand from the correspondence which you provided with your memorandum that you have requested information and documentation from the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS") concerning the agency's processing of state income tax refunds. In particular, you have requested information concerning the numbers of refunds processed, when they were processed, how they were processed and the estimated number of refunds still pending. You have also inquired into possible reasons for any delays including any instructions which the agency may have given or received to delay the refund process or to separate refunds based on their face amount, and any hardware or software problems which may have occurred.