The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 7 of 42
-
Senator George Jepsen, State Capitol, 2001-015 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
In response to your request, this is a formal opinion regarding whether advanced practice registered nurses ("APRNs"), licensed nurse-midwives and physician assistants in Connecticut are authorized to dispense, prescribe and administer the drug mifepristone (brand name "Mifeprex", also known as "RU-486") to women in licensed clinics for the purpose of terminating early pregnancies in a non-surgical manner.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether the Watertown Scholarship Committee is eligible to receive a raffle permit. The central issue is whether this type of committee is an educational or charitable organization as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-172(5).
-
This letter is in response to your request for advice concerning the State Insurance Purchasing Board's authority to obtain surety bonds for members of the board of directors of the Connecticut Convention Center Authority.
-
You have asked for our opinion whether the provisions of 1987 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 87-554, Sec. 10.(c), now Conn. Gen. Stat. e 54-211(c), should be applied retroactively to a claim which arose prior to the effective date of the act.
-
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the effect of E-Sign (Public Law 106-229; Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act) on Connecticut’s electronic records and signatures laws.
-
You have requested our opinion on whether or not the provisions of Chapter 250a of the Connecticut General Statutes would prohibit a proposed business joint venture involving the Pilot Corporation ("Pilot") and Marathon Ashland Petroleum ("MAP") from operating a retail service station at the Pilot travel center in Milford, Connecticut.
-
John R. Shears, Teachers' Retirement Board, 1990-037 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This is in response to your request for advice dated September 13, 1990, in which you request the opinion of this office as to the meaning of the phrase "last employing board of education" as it is used in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 10-183t as amended by 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-342 (hereinafter P.A. 89-342). In addition, you request our opinion on whether the Teachers' Retirement Board may make subsidy payments for health insurance pursuant to Sec. 4(c) of P.A. 89-342 to a board of education other than the "last employing board of education."
-
This is in response to your letter dated December 4, 2000, in which you request our opinion on whether judicial marshals who transport prisoners in motor vehicles between various facilities within the State of Connecticut are required to have a special operator's license.
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion regarding the authority of the Chief Court Administrator, the Honorable Joseph Pellegrino, to eliminate the Connecticut Superior Court’s Geographical Area 16 ("G.A. 16") by closing the G.A. 16 courthouse in West Hartford and expanding the boundaries of G.A. 14 to incorporate all of the towns that are currently in G.A. 16.
-
You have asked whether the expenditure of state funds to pay for costs related to the nursing home strike, including the cost of mobilizing the National Guard and the expedited payment to nursing home operators of the cost of replacement workers, would violate any state or federal labor laws.
-
You have inquired whether the State has authority to establish standards for air emissions which are stricter than those established under the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et. seq. You have also inquired whether the cost of establishing more stringent standards must be borne by the State.
-
You have asked for our opinion on whether towns can spray for mosquitoes in areas in which the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) does not intend to spray and whether towns can prevent the state from conducting its own spraying program within town boundaries.
-
You have asked for an interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 26-3 as regards DEP's authority to take any animal by whatever means reasonably necessary to carry out its functions, even if the means DEP intends to use is contrary to another statutory provision.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether the two-store limit rule in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-48a bars the issuance of a package store permit to Jaimax, Inc. for premises at 701 North Colony Road, Wallingford, CT.
-
You recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following questions: 1. Is the filing of a notice and fee by a federally-registered investment adviser under Section 36b-6(d) or 36b-6(e) of the Connecticut General Statutes, for which a letter of acknowledgment is issued by the Department, considered to be a "license or permit to operate a business in this state" within the meaning of Section 31-286a(b) of the Workers' Compensation Act? 2. Is the filing of an annual notice renewal fee by such an investment adviser under Section 36b-6(e) of the Connecticut General Statutes considered the renewal of a license or permit within the meaning of Section 31-286a(b) of the Act? 3. If the response to either of the foregoing questions is yes, is Section 31-286a(b) of the Act preempted because it exceeds what is reserved to the states under Section 307(a) of NSMIA, viz., the filing by federally-registered investment advisers of any documents filed with the SEC? 4. If it is determined that Section 31-286a(b) of the Act is preempted, will the Department be liable for failure to comply with Section 31-286a(b) if it fails to obtain from federally-registered investment advisers sufficient evidence of current compliance with the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of Section 31-284?