The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 22 of 42
-
Inquiry whether a member of the State Teachers' Retirement Board, who was elected as an active teacher retires midterm.
-
Consumer Counsel Healey, Formal Opinion 2011-007,State of Connecticut Attorney General
Opinion regarding Department of Energy and Environmental Protection request that Public Utilities Regulatory Authority suspend proceedings in pending contested proceeding
-
Honorable Leo Arnone, Formal Opinion 2011-008, State of Connecticut Attorney General
Opinion as to wether Administrative Directive signed on September 30, 2011, is binding
-
Inquiry into whether a superintendent who received a waiver of certification pursuant to Chapter 166 of our general statutes is eligible for pension credit under Chapter 167a, the Teachers’ Retirement System
-
Honorable Howard F. Pitkin, Formal Opinion 2011-002, State of Connecticut Attorney General
Legal opinion regarding whether Conn. Gen. Stat. § 36a-555, as amended by Public Act 09-209, § 40
-
Opinion requesting whether an out of state housing authority may act as a public housing authority in Connecticut without being authorized
-
You have asked for our opinion "as to the application of group life insurance to State employees retired under the disability provisions of the State Employees Retirement Act and an employee receiving a disability benefit."
-
You have requested the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether the Department of Income Maintenance is authorized to enter into contractual arrangements with insurance companies in connection with a demonstration program to be jointly administered by the Department of Income Maintenance and the Insurance Department. Specifically, under the proposed contract, Income Maintenance would advise insurance companies whether payments to insured persons under insurance policies qualify for "asset exclusions" under the program. Income Maintenance would receive a contractual payment from the insurance companies for providing the contracted service.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on the self-defense rights of liquor control agents. Specifically, you ask whether self-defense rights are greater if exercised in the "workplace", and you ask us for a definition of the workplace for agents.
-
Your recent inquiry focuses upon the provisions of P.A. 89-390, e 24(b), which, in essence, create certain zones of protection around the Tele-Track facilities located in New Haven and Windsor Locks.
-
This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of July 5, l990 wherein you request our opinion regarding 1990 Conn. Pub. Acts, 90-306. The first section of this Act concerns disclosures by real estate brokers and salesmen to prospective purchasers and sellers, while the balance thereof concerns the management of common interest property.
-
You have requested our advice on a question concerning the use of real property in Granby which was received by the University of Connecticut (hereinafter: "the University") in l976 as a gift from Laura and Tudor Holcomb. Specifically, you ask whether use of the property as recommended by a consultant would be consistent with the terms of the deed to the University from the grantors.
-
John R. Shears, Teachers' Retirement Board, 1990-037 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This is in response to your request for advice dated September 13, 1990, in which you request the opinion of this office as to the meaning of the phrase "last employing board of education" as it is used in Conn. Gen. Stat. e 10-183t as amended by 1989 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 89-342 (hereinafter P.A. 89-342). In addition, you request our opinion on whether the Teachers' Retirement Board may make subsidy payments for health insurance pursuant to Sec. 4(c) of P.A. 89-342 to a board of education other than the "last employing board of education."
-
In your letter of July 12, 1989, you requested our opinion regarding the meaning of certain provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. e 14-253a, which mandates that parking spaces be established and reserved for handicapped persons.
-
In your letter of August 9, 1990, you call our attention to the provisions of P.A. 90-261, Sec. 5 and ask our advice with regard to the following two questions: 1. Does Section 5 of the Act apply retroactively, i.e., are all persons incarcerated "as of" October 1, 1990 who meet all other specified criteria, eligible to be considered for parole under the Act. 2. Does the Act permit the Board to consider for parole persons who are already serving their sentences in either Community Release or Community Residence (SHR) programs.