Search Results
Page 195 of 221
-
I am writing in response to your request for a formal opinion as to whether the Department of Banking ("Department") has the authority to reimburse an electronic service provider for reasonable costs associated with complying with an administrative subpoena, in light of the requirements imposed by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 2706 ("ECPA") and section 36b-26(b) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act ("Act").
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) must review and approve the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission's Cashless Wagering System (CWS) for slot machines proposed for use at Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Connecticut, in advance of implementation.
-
In response to questions raised by the Auditors of Public Accounts related to a whistleblower complaint, you have asked my opinion on two related questions concerning the Department of Social Services’ (the Department or DSS) administration of the federal Low Income House Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) in Connecticut, by and through Community Action Agencies
-
This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether, pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-259, municipalities may purchase risk-pooled, self-funded health insurance through the Municipal Employees Health Insurance Plan
-
You have asked for advice on whether inmates working within a correctional institution other than as part of an enterprise program combining State Use Industries with Private Sector Prison Industries may be considered employees of the Connecticut Department of Correction
-
In your August 28, 2007 memorandum, you sought this Office’s advice regarding the interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-417i(n) of the New Home Construction Contractors Act, and Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-432(o) of the Home Improvement Act
-
This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion on “whether or not the Board of Pardons has the authority to commute a non-parole eligible offense, as defined by CGS § 54-125a(b)(1), to make it a parole eligible offense.”
-
You have asked for a formal opinion as to whether Connecticut's "Voter's Bill of Rights" requires municipalities to provide a voting system accessible to the physically disabled in each polling place in non-federal elections, including elections held this year.
-
You have asked this Office for an opinion concerning the use of the City of New Haven’s “Elm City Resident Cards" during the electoral process. Specifically, you have asked us to opine whether your Office has the legal authority to issue the following directives with respect to the use of such cards by individuals seeking to vote or register to vote in Connecticut
-
This letter is in response to your November 19, 2007 request that I reconsider my formal legal opinion issued to Comptroller Nancy Wyman on July 25, 2007 (Attorney General Opinion 2007-012).
-
By letter dated March 3, 1995 you requested an opinion from this office which raises the following question: Has the department of labor's practice of annually transferring those funds in excess of $500,000 from the Employment Security Special Administration Fund to the regular Employment Security Administration Fund, for the purpose of offsetting projected deficits of federal administrative funds in future fiscal years, complied with Conn. Gen. Stat. Section 31-259 and any other applicable laws?
-
You have asked for our opinion on whether the provisions of Special Act 95-12 preclude you from entering into a contract with Corporate Express, a private corporation, for a statewide direct delivery service for office supplies.
-
Recently, it has come to the attention of this office that certain retail firearms dealers have advertised that customers may purchase handguns until October 1, 1995 without a permit to carry such weapons, and without an eligibility certificate. This "policy" is apparently prompted by their interpretation of the interplay between Connecticut General Statutes §§ 29-33 and 29-36j. The purpose of this letter is to (1) clarify the relationship between these two statutes, and (2) afford the Department of Public Safety appropriate guidance concerning the proper implementation of the statutes' provisions.
-
On September 25, 1995, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion concerning the regulation of invalid coach and wheelchair livery services within the State of Connecticut. The Office of Emergency Medical Services ("OEMS") regulates invalid coach service as an ambulance service pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-180. The Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulates the transportation of livery service for the elderly and the handicapped pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §13b-105. Subsequent to the issuance of the opinion, a question has arisen regarding the distinction between invalid coach and wheelchair livery service, and therefore, whether the regulation of a particular transportation service falls under the jurisdiction of OEMS or DOT.
-
This is in response to your request for an Attorney General's Opinion on whether the disclosure by the Department of Social Services ("DSS") to the Offices of the Connecticut Attorney General and the Connecticut Child Advocate of information concerning Medicaid medical assistance recipients, to be used in an investigation into the liability of insurance companies for the cost of services paid for by Medicaid, is provided for purposes directly connected with the administration of the Medicaid program, and is fully permitted by federal law.