Search Results

Page 107 of 213

• Jeanne Milstein, Child Advocate, Office of the Child Advocate, Formal Opinion 2009-003, Attorney General State of Connecticut

  You have requested an opinion concerning the operation of the Family Support Council (the “Council”). Specifically, you have asked whether the Council’s enabling statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-219c, prohibits you from delegating your voting authority to a member of your staff

• Martin K. Libbin, Deputy Director, Legal Services, Formal Opinion 2009-012, Attorney General State of Connecticut

  This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion clarifying the Judicial Branch’s duty to disclose juvenile delinquency and youthful offender records

• Attorney General Demands Website Immediately Stop Selling Jasper Howard Merchandise

• Attorney General, DEP Announce Ohio Utility To Pay State $270,000, Slash Pollution Carried To CT

• The Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence

  Information about domestic violence, the toll-free 24-hour crisis line, safe shelters across the state, services available in Connecticut.

• The Department of Children and Families

  Information about reporting child abuse, ways to help children, leaving your child alone, foster care and adoption, etc.

• Ms. Carol Carson, Executive Director, Office of State Ethics, Formal Opinion 2009-006, Attorney General State of Connecticut

  The Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation (“the Church”) has filed a federal lawsuit against officials of the Office of State Ethics (“OSE”) seeking court orders preventing the OSE from seeking to enforce against the Church certain state laws governing lobbyists

• Attorney General, DEP Obtain Emergency Order Blocking Illegal And Dangerous Disturbance Of Toxic Waste

• Attorney General, DEP Win $100,000 Fine Against Montville Couple For Failing To Restore Damaged Tidal Wetlands

• Attorney General, DEP Win $276,000 In Penalties Against Stamford Solid Waste Hauler For Illegal Dumps

• Honorable Theodore S. Sergi, State Board of Education, 1997-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  You have asked for our opinion about whether you have correctly interpreted two aspects of Conn. Gen. Stat.

• Honorable Thomas D. Ritter, House of Representatives, 1997-002 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  We are replying to your letter of January 16, 1997 in which you ask a number of questions concerning the legality and propriety of Mr. John B. Meskill's January 15, 1997 resignation as executive director of the Division of Special Revenue (the "Division") to become the executive director of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Gaming Commission (the "Tribal Commission"). In particular, you would like to know (1) whether the specific revolving door limitation contained in General Statutes

• Jesse M. Frankl, Workers' Compensation Commission, 1997-012 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  This is in response to your letter dated January 27, 1997, in which you asked our opinion with respect to the following two questions concerning an application of Conn. Gen. Stat.

• 2017-05 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut

  Formal opinion on whether, for purposes of administering the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-28(b), a resident of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (MPTN) reservation is a bona fide permanent resident of the Town of Ledyard such that local authorities are empowered to issue a temporary state permit to such individuals, and based thereon, the Commissioner of the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (Commissioner) is authorized to issue a state permit to carry pistols and revolvers.

• 2017-06 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut

  Speaker Aresimowicz and Majority Leader Ritter have requested an opinion about whether the legal principles and cautions set forth in Attorney General Opinion No. 89-11 , 1989 WL 505894 (May 9, 1989) ("Opinion 89-11 ") concerning the constitutionality of legislative enactments altering the provisions of collective bargaining agreements between the State and its employees remain in force today. Although subsequent cases have further developed the law, we conclude that the principles and cautions expressed in Opinion 89-11 continue to apply.