Formal Opinions
Page 8 of 42
-
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.
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion of the Attorney General regarding the ability of the Department of Public Health ("Department") to access information contained in the personnel files of employees of institutions licensed by the Department. The Department's inspectors have recently been refused access to institutional employee personnel files when conducting inspections at a hospital. The hospital asserted that unless the Department issued an "administrative summons", the records could not be released unless consent of the employee was obtained. You also asked whether such information would be subject to release by the Department pursuant to a Freedom of Information request.
-
John P. Burke, Department of Banking, 2000-006 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked for our opinion as to whether Section 36a-158(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes violates the Commerce Clause of the Unites States Constitution or the Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal constitutions as to an out-of-state state-chartered bank that wishes to establish an automated teller machine ("ATM") in this state.
-
In your letter dated August 31, 2000, you asked whether the state can recover interest from the United States Postal Service as a result of the late delivery of certified mail containing tax returns and $140 million in tax payments. In analyzing this issue, it must be noted that any action against the United States Postal Service is, in fact, an action against the United States.
-
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.
-
You asked for a formal opinion concerning the Superior Court’s scope of review in an appeal of a municipal commission's decision on an affordable housing application under the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Procedure set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. §8-30g.
-
By request dated June 23, 2006, you have asked for my opinion as to whether Connecticut General Statutes § 4a-59a(b) allows the Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) to extend contracts “up to or beyond one year
-
You have requested an opinion whether, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-460(a), a Connecticut bank may sell or issue a gift card for which the agreement governing the card provides that the card’s value will not expire and that no inactivity fee is imposed, although the card itself contains an expiration date.
-
The Tunxis Management Co. (“Tunxis”) and William A. Tomasso, former president of Tunxis, recently pled guilty to federal charges related to the corrupt relationship between William A. Tomasso, and Peter N. Ellef and Lawrence E. Alibozek, chief of staff and deputy chief of staff to former Governor John G. Rowland, that resulted in the selection of Tunxis for state property management contracts.
-
Honorable Edwin R. Rodriguez, Formal Opinion 2006-022, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
This will acknowledge and reply to your request on behalf of the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP) for amplification of DCP’s authority over apprentices, as expressed in a formal opinion of my Office to the Commissioner of Labor dated November 8, 2005, in light of the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-333.
-
In your communication of December 27, 1999, you state that the Board of Trustees for the Community-Technical Colleges ("Board of Trustees") had voted earlier in 1999 to change its name and the names of each of its twelve colleges by reducing "regional community-technical college(s)" to "community college" in each title. You state that the Board of Trustees' action was based upon a "yearlong public relations study." On behalf of the Board of Governors for Higher Education ("Board of Governors") you asked whether the approval of the Board of Governors pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §10a-6 and/or of the General Assembly is required to effect legally these name changes.
-
I reviewed the questions that you have presented to me as follows: 1. Must an HMO medical plan, the terms and conditions of which contain a custodial care exception, offer a plan to the public, after receiving Department of Insurance approval, that: (a) meets the requirements of CGS 38a-553(c)(10), (b) complies with CGS 38a-478 et seq., as from time to time amended, and Article XXI of the Connecticut Constitution, and (c) does not use rehabilitation or improvement as criteria in determining whether care for disabled persons or persons suffering from biologically-based mental illnesses or nervous conditions is to be considered custodial? 2. Must the external appeal panel, acting pursuant to CGS 38a-478n, when reviewing appeals certified by the Department of Insurance and which construe or involve the custodial care exception (CGS 38a-553(c)(10)) as applied to disabled persons or persons suffering from biologically-based mental illnesses or nervous conditions (CGS 38a-478 et seq., as from time to time amended): (a) apply said CGS 38a-478 et seq. and Article XXI of the State Constitution, and (b) not use rehabilitation or improvement as tests for custodial care?
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion of the Attorney General, submitted in your capacity as Chairman of the Commission For Child Support Guidelines, on the following two questions: (1) Whether the child support guidelines, promulgated on January 1, 1991, are subject to the legislative review provisions of Public Act 91-209; and (2) Whether the January 1, 1991 child support guidelines, and all future guidelines, are subject to the rule-making procedures under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.
-
In your letter dated September 12, 1991, you asked us whether the conservator of the estate of a disabled child of a deceased member of the State Teachers' Retirement System is eligible for monthly benefits as a legal guardian under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10-183h(a).
-
This letter is in response to your letter of March 12, 1992, in which you requested our opinion on the following issue: Is there any lawful basis upon which a municipality may refuse to meet the requirements of a state law when compliance with the law will result in costs to the municipality which are not reimbursed or otherwise borne by the state?