Search Results

Page 136 of 213

• Attorney General Will Seek Rehearing In FAA Case; D.C. Circuit Rejects State Fight Against FAA Flight Paths Over Southwestern CT

• Robert M. Ward, House Minority Leader, House of Representatives, 2005-007 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  You have asked for a formal opinion regarding the possible consequences of enacting Substitute House Bill 6438, An Act Extending Husky Plan, Part A Benefits for Parents and Needy Caretaker Relatives. The proposed Bill would temporarily continue the Medicaid eligibility of individuals whose eligibility for Medicaid under the Transitional Medical Assistance ("TMA") coverage group will end between March 31, 2005 and May 31, 2005. Eligibility for this group of individuals would be extended through June 30, 2005 under the proposed Bill. You inquire whether or not this proposed temporary extension of benefits may "ultimately allow these adults to qualify for any additional extension under federal law?"

• Attorney General Wins Agreement From AT&T To Block All Third Party Charges At Consumer Request

• Attorney General Wins $50,000 Award Against New York Clothing Bin Company For Deceiving Consumers

• The Honorable Denise L. Nappier, Office of the Treasurer, 2005-003 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  Through your General Counsel, Catherine E. LaMarr, you requested an opinion of this Office on a matter concerning the Second Injury Fund and its assessment audit program. At issue is the meaning of the statutory language "from the date the sum should have been paid" with respect to the statutory interest penalty in Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-354(a). You indicate that the Fund has been applying the statutory interest penalty from the beginning of the audit period on any unpaid amounts resulting from accounting errors, reporting errors, or otherwise.

• Hon. Joseph M. Suggs, Jr., State Treasurer, 1993-021 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  You have requested our advice regarding whether Connecticut's laws on protection of public deposits1 are adequate to fully secure such deposits in the event the depository institution in which such funds are deposited fails and is placed in receivership. The security of public deposits is an issue because federal deposit insurance for public deposits is limited to $100,000 per account, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(a)(2)(A), and public deposits often exceed that amount. Specifically, you are concerned about the security of state deposits in the event of a challenge by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in its role as receiver of a failed depository institution, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1811, et seq.

• Hon. William E. Curry, Jr., State Comptroller, 1993-020 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  You recently sought our advice as to whether you may discontinue the practice of providing on request lists of outstanding state checks to asset finder organizations ("AFO").

• Attorney General Writes To U.S. Treasury Secretary Geithner Calling On Fed To Stop Steering $400 Million To Credit Rating Agencies That Enabled Economic Meltdown

• Attorney General’s Investigation Into Ticketmaster Continuing

• Susan F. Cogswell, Insurance Commissioner, Department of Insurance, 2005-010 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  You have asked whether the exclusion under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a-860(f)(2)(D)(iii) of the Connecticut Life and Health Insurance Guaranty Association Act ("Act") applies to an excess loss health insurance policy issued by Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"), an insurance carrier that is in liquidation, to ProFlow, Inc. ("ProFlow"), a Connecticut corporation, which procured the policy as part of its health benefits plan for its employees.

• Attorney General’s Statement On $15 Million Class Action Verdict That The Hartford Influenced Appraisers

• The Honorable Donald E. Williams, Senate President Pro Tempore and the Honorable Martin M. Looney, Senate Majority Leader, 2005-019 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  This letter is in response to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether Executive Order No. 7 (the "Order") establishing a State Contracting Standards Board (the "Board") is unconstitutional, in whole or in part, as a violation of the separation of powers clause of article second of the state Constitution.

• The Honorable M. Jodi Rell, Governor, State of Connecticut, 2005-009 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  This letter responds to your request for a formal opinion on two questions that have arisen in connection with Substitute Senate Bill No. 963, "An Act Concerning Civil Unions" (File No. 24), passed by the Senate on April 6, 2005, and soon to be considered by the House of Representatives.

• Honorable Allan A. Crystal , Department of Revenue Services , 1993-037 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  You have asked what liability, if any, a state agency would have "with respect to any incidents arising at, during or after" an off-site holiday party attended by agency employees during working hours.

• Honorable Audrey Rowe , Department of Income Maintenance , 1993-016 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut

  By your letter of May 4, 1992, you requested our opinion on several questions about the exclusion of irrevocable funeral accounts from consideration as assets in determining eligibility for your Department's programs. Essentially, you asked whether the monetary limit Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-207 places on such accounts is a requirement for their validity. If it is, you asked whether the limit may be exceeded either by creating an account outside the state and then transferring it to the state or by creating multiple irrevocable accounts whose total amount exceed the limit.