Formal Opinions
Page 34 of 42
-
Hon. John G. Rowland, State of Connecticut, 1995-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have asked this office whether, upon passage of Senate Bill No. 158, authorizing the creation of a "commission on the future of gaming in Connecticut," the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe (if they commence casino operations) would continue to be obligated to the terms of the Memorandums of Understanding ("MOUs") related to the operation of video facsimile machines at tribal casinos. You have also asked about the State's ability to enforce its agreement with the Tribes, and its ability to prevent any loss of revenue from the monthly contributions made by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe under the agreement.
-
In your letter of December 7, 1994 you seek our advice with regard to two questions related to the provisions of P.A. 93-219. 1. Is an inmate who is subject to Section 10 of the Act and who under your letter of November 23 must serve the full term imposed by the court unreduced by any good time credits and who is in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction on the date he or she historically would have been discharged entitled to be mandatorily paroled by the Parole Board and then subject to its supervision for the remainder of the full term imposed by the sentencing court? 2. For those persons who are serving sentences for which there is no parole eligibility, but who may be eligible for community release under the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-100c, are they entitled to be mandatorily transferred to community supervision on the date they historically would have been discharged?
-
This is in response to your letter dated October 16, 1995, wherein you requested a legal opinion from this office concerning the computation of cost of living adjustments (COLAs) under the Workers' Compensation Act for the years 1994 and 1995 for persons injured prior to July 1, 1993.
-
You have requested our opinion regarding the legal status of a tower to be used by WHUS, the radio station funded by student activity fees at the University of Connecticut at Storrs (the "University"). Specifically, you have asked whether the tower, on which the Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police (the "State Police") intends to place telecommunications equipment, is "owned or operated by the state" within the meaning of the Public Utility Environmental Standards Act ("PUESA"), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50i(a)(6).
-
The Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, 1995-019 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This is in response to your predecessor, William E. Curry's request for an opinion inquiring whether the Departments of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Children and Family Services may operate trustee accounts for their outpatient clients as activity funds pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-52, et seq.
-
2020-01 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut
Whether Section 3 of the July 15, 2020 version of the proposed Police Accountability Bill (LCO 3471) would interact with collectively bargained grievance procedures.
-
2020-02 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut
What is the scope of the Judicial Review Council’s authority when considering a judge’s disability retirement application pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 51-49?
-
You have requested an opinion regarding the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act ["FOIA"], Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-7 et seq., to the Connecticut Student Loan Foundation ["CSLF"]. Specifically, the issue you raised is whether the CSLF is a public agency subject to the public records and meeting requirements of the FOIA.
-
This is in response to your letter of January 28, 1991 in which you ask whether or not a "judge who has been called in to active duty in the Armed Services of the country ... should be continued on the payroll of the Judicial Department for the period of time the judge concurrently retains the office of judge and serves in the Armed Forces of the United Stated." A superior court judge who is in the reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States has been called to active duty after August 7, 1990 in connection with Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, necessitating an answer to your question.
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated June 6, 1990 from your department, wherein you request our opinion on an issue concerning Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-132 et. seq., the Interstate Compact for Parole and Probation Supervision. Specifically you question "whether or not it is necessary to obtain a warrant from a Connecticut court, in addition to that of the sending state, in order to take custody of and confine an out-of-state probationer in a Connecticut correctional facility until he/she can be returned to the sending state."
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the impact of the repeal of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-42, which directed the refund of liquor permit fees under certain circumstances, on pending requests for such liquor permits rebates.
-
Chief State's Attorney Richard Palmer, 1991-038 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
On August 21 and 24, 1990 then Chief State's Attorney John J. Kelly requested an opinion of this office concerning the calculation of longevity benefits for State's Attorney Robert C. Satti.
-
We are writing in response to your letter dated January 9, 1991, in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency requirement contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-77(d)(2), a statute concerning tuition waives for eligible veterans.
-
Former Commissioner Heslin requested an opinion from this office on "whether any consumer commodity which is not individually marked with its current selling price is in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-79 and § 21a-79-a of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies."
-
In your letter dated June 25, 1990, you requested our opinion on the following questions regarding the meaning of subsection (g) of Section 7-147b of the Connecticut General Statutes: If the possible creation of a local historic district is being considered by a municipality under Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-147a and 7-147b, and if a municipality owns real property within the proposed local historic district, is the municipality's legislative body entitled to vote, under Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-147b(g), on the proposed establishment of the district? Under the circumstances described in (1) above, would community members, either those in the municipality as a whole or only those within the proposed historic district, be entitled to cast a vote as collective owners of the municipal property in a vote taken under Conn. Gen. Stat. §7-147b(g)?