Search Results
Page 132 of 214
-
Honorable Susan Bysiewicz, State Capitol, 1999-001 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked: If an elector files a written request to remove his/her social security number from the records of the registrars of voters (to whom the elector voluntarily gave it on his voter application card under section 9-20 of the General Statutes) may the registrar remove it from his/her records, and may the registrar of voters then refuse to provide such social security number to the Jury Administrator in the format prescribed under Section 51-222a?
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning your access, as the Auditors of Public Accounts, to certain documents of the Judicial Selection Commission (the "Commission") in connection with audits of the Commission pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 2-90. In particular, you ask whether, pursuant to subsection (g) of that statute, the Commission is obligated to provide you with documents concerning the evaluation of judicial candidates and incumbents that are considered confidential under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a (j).
-
Your office requested our opinion on whether the Town of Seymour may enter into an agreement with a third party agent to collect current and delinquent sewer use charges pursuant to authority granted in Public Act 96-217, as amended.
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether the Judicial Branch has a legal duty to disclose to the public the master list of prospective jurors compiled pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-222a.
-
You have asked for my opinion on the authority of the Board of Education and Services for the Blind (BESB) to choose the brand name products to be sold in vending machines placed on public property by BESB pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-303
-
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)
-
Recently, you requested an opinion regarding whether a conflict of interest exists for a member of the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (hereinafter the Board) arising from his participation as the named plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety
-
Daniel F. Caruso, Chairman, Formal Opinion 2007-010, Attorney General State of Connecticut
You have asked me to provide “an opinion as to what the rights and responsibilities are of the utility companies relative to their use of existing easements” in connection with the Middletown – Norwalk 345 kV electric transmission line and associated facilities approved by the Council in Docket No. 272.
-
This opinion is in response to your request for advice on whether § 33 of Public Act 07-253 (Public Act), which imposes a tax on gross earnings from the provision of community antenna television service, video programming service by satellite, and certified video programming service in the State
-
The Honorable M. Jodi Rell, Governor, Formal Opinion 2007-011, Attorney General State of Connecitcut
You have asked me several questions regarding the funding the University of Connecticut (“UConn”) may use to repair code violations discovered in buildings constructed or renovated under the University of Connecticut 2000 Act
-
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
-
You have asked for advice with regard to the impact on state tax laws of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health regarding same-sex marriages
-
Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, Formal Opinion 2008-019, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
This is a formal legal opinion in response to several questions that you raised concerning the ramifications of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
-
This formal opinion responds to several questions that the Department of Public Health (“Department”) has asked concerning the effect the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
