Search Results
Page 195 of 221
-
Kevin J. Rasch, Esq., Legal Counsel, Formal Opinion 2006-005, Attorney General State of Connecticut
You have requested an opinion concerning a proposed resolution by the City of New London (“City”) to deal with the issue of the continuing possession of certain properties by their former owners after the properties were taken by eminent domain.
-
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).
-
In connection with the Department of Social Services’ (the "Department") Elder Financial Abuse Project (the "Project"), your Department requested an opinion as to whether an employee of a financial institution who suspects that an elderly customer is the victim of financial exploitation may disclose the elderly customer’s financial information to the Department’s Protective Services for the Elderly (PSE).
-
You recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following question: Whether bonds issued in 1784 became a responsibility of the United States Government at the time of the adoption of the Constitution around 1790, provided claim was made within ten years of the due date.
-
This is in response to the letter from Representative Shawn T. Johnston dated February 4, 2000, inquiring whether the Governor can enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Veterans Memorial Casino Organization to allow it to operate high stakes bingo1 in Connecticut.
-
Watershed lands are among Connecticut’s most precious natural resources -- a legacy for future generations that we have a responsibility to preserve and protect. Besides their vital role in protecting the purity of the state’s water supplies, the natural beauty of these lands, undisturbed and tranquil, provides a refuge and respite from development and commercialism. These pristine lands are irreplaceable; once developed they are forever lost.
-
Ms. Nancy Wyman, State Comptroller, 2000-024 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked two related questions about the State Employee Campaign for Charitable Giving (the "campaign"), which is an annual campaign "to raise funds from state employees for charitable and public health, welfare, environmental, conservation and services purposes." Conn. Gen. Stat. § 5-262(a)(3). Specifically, you ask whether the State Employee Campaign Committee (the "Committee") may prohibit a federation1 from participating in the campaign if one or more of the federation's member agencies solicits from state employees during the designated campaign period other than through the campaign. You have also asked whether the Committee may require a federation that seeks to participate in the campaign to certify to the Committee that it will refrain from soliciting charitable contributions from state employees during the designated campaign period other than through the campaign.
-
In your letter dated April 27, 2000 you requested a formal opinion as to whether the chairman of a council of government has the authority to sign on behalf of all the chief elected officials of a workforce investment area an agreement by which the council of government will administer and oversee federal Workforce Investment Act funds and activities.
-
This is in response to your letter dated January 19, 2000, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation ("DOT") has the authority to enter into major contracts regarding development at Bradley International Airport ("BIA") when the Bradley International Airport Commission ("Commission") believes that DOT has failed to fully cooperate with the Commission in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of Section 15-101s of the Connecticut General Statutes.
-
You have written to this office seeking an interpretation of Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-63c(a), a statutory provision concerning the procedure local tax assessors are to employ in the valuation of commercial and industrial property used "primarily for purposes of producing rental income." Specifically, you ask whether the term "primarily" as used in this provision means "that more than 50% of the area of the structure is used for the purpose of producing rental income, or does 'primarily' mean that more than 50% of the income from the property is a result of rental income?" You posed a second question that stated: "If the second interpretation is correct, would gross or net income be used to determine the primary purpose?"
-
You have asked what regulatory authority the Elections Enforcement Commission ("EEC") has with respect to alleged violations of Conn. Gen. Stat. §2-30a(b), which provides in relevant part: "No expenditure of state funds shall be made to influence electors to vote for or against any such proposed constitutional amendment."
-
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?