The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Search Results
Page 170 of 215
-
You ask whether the United States Marshals Service (“the Marshals Service”) may access the Judicial Branch’s Paperless Rearrest Warrant Notification (“PRAWN”) database, which contains records of all rearrest warrants issued by the Superior Court.
-
Thank you for your letter of December 23, 2005, seeking my opinion concerning issues relating to your on-going efforts to procure voting machines that comply with the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act (“HAVA”). Does Connecticut state law require that electronic voting machines utilize a “full face” ballot?
-
You have asked for a formal opinion whether the State of Connecticut satisfies the requirements of § 413 of the Justice for All Act of 2004 (the Act).
-
You have requested our opinion with respect to an application by the Town of Trumbull for a temporary moratorium from the affordable housing land use appeals procedure under the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-30g(l).
-
This letter responds to your request for a formal legal opinion concerning the authority of the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission (the “Commission”) to hold its 13th annual event
-
Thank you for arranging our meeting with the Connecticut Lottery Corporation to discuss my concerns with the new lottery game entitled "Treasure Tower." Following my viewing of the game, and our helpful round-table discussion, I appreciate the thorough review this game has received from your agency. However, I continue to have grave concerns about the legality of this game and its design characteristics that are very likely to appeal directly to young children. Accordingly, I must and I hereby advise you to withdraw approval for the distribution and implementation of this game, unless and until the legislature passes legislation allowing this type of gaming.
-
Shaun B. Cashman, Commissioner of Labor, 2003-013 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
As you are aware, section 31-57f of the Connecticut General Statutes provides for the payment of a standard wage rate to certain service workers employed by some contractors of the State or its agents. It has come to our attention that there has been uncertainty as to whether this statute requires such employers to raise wages during the life of a contract to match the prevailing standard wage rate as that rate increases, or whether the statute only requires those employers to pay service workers at the rate that was in effect at the time the contract was executed.
-
The Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, 2003-004 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked for a formal opinion as to whether the State is obligated to provide recently laid off state employees with certain severance benefits, including payment of the State's share of health insurance premiums for a period of six months after their termination from state service, pursuant to certain collective bargaining agreements and during administrative proceedings and/or additional negotiations with the unions on this issue.
-
You have asked for a formal legal opinion concerning the General Assembly's authority to enact a continuing resolution to appropriate funds for the operation of the state government in the absence of a state budget. As you note in your July 11, 2003 letter, the General Assembly passed two biennial budget bills earlier this year, both of which were vetoed by Governor Rowland. Given the lack of a budget for the new fiscal year beginning July 1, 2003, the General Assembly passed a two week continuing resolution or temporary appropriations measure on June 30, 2003.
-
In your letter of January 23, 2003, you have asked this Office for advice regarding the legal authority of the Board of Education for Regional School District No. 8 to create and fund from year to year what is referred to as an accrued liability reserve fund for the stated purpose of paying certain teacher retirement benefits under the terms of the district's collective bargaining agreement with its teachers. You note that the municipalities participating in the district currently pay annual assessments, which are deposited in the reserve fund each year.
-
In your letter of January 23, 2003, you have asked this Office for advice regarding the legal authority of the Board of Education for Regional School District No. 8 to create and fund from year to year what is referred to as an accrued liability reserve fund for the stated purpose of paying certain teacher retirement benefits under the terms of the district's collective bargaining agreement with its teachers. You note that the municipalities participating in the district currently pay annual assessments, which are deposited in the reserve fund each year.
-
You have asked whether certain vehicle identification number ("VIN") etching reimbursement products ("the Products") should be regulated as insurance under Title 38a of the Connecticut General Statutes.
-
Your staff has asked whether persons convicted of violating Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-73a, Fourth Degree Sexual Assault, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-8 (Accessory), 53a-48 (Conspiracy), or 53a-49 (Attempt) are required to register pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-251. That statute requires registration of persons convicted of a "nonviolent sexual offense," defined as persons convicted of violating Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-73a.
-
The Honorable James Amann, State Capitol, 2003-002 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to the proper construction of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a, which governs the appointment of the Judicial Selection Commission, given an internal inconsistency in the statute created by the recent reapportionment of Connecticut's congressional districts.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on certain issues concerning the repeal of the games of chance statutes.1 These statues, until they were repealed, allowed Las Vegas Nights charitable gambling in the state. The repealer, enacted during the January 6, 2003 Special Session in 2003 Conn. Pub. Acts (Jan. 6 Spec. Sess.) 03-1, terminated this type of gambling effective January 7, 2003 in an effort to prevent federal allowance of more Indian casinos in Connecticut.