The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 42
-
Your office has asked this office for advice about the applicability and constitutionality of Public Act 97-58, 1, with regard to Allstate's "Do I Need An Attorney?" flyer.
-
I have reviewed your December 23, 1997 request for our opinion on whether local registrars of voters are required by law to supply the Social Security numbers of voters to the State Jury Administrator to assist the Administrator in the preparation of the master jury list. According to your letter, the legislature mandated the disclosure of this information in Public Act 97-200 as a means to properly and more precisely compile lists of potential jurors.
-
This is in response to your request for opinion pertaining to reimbursement of regulatory costs under the Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Procedures, 56 Fed. Reg. 24996 (May 31, 1991) (Procedures). You ask whether the Procedures, which allow you to assess the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (Tribe) for "reasonable and necessary costs" of regulating and investigating operations at Foxwoods, include reimbursement of indirect as well as direct costs.
-
This is in response to your letter dated June 2, 1998, in which you request our opinion regarding the scope of authority delegated to the State Traffic Commission ("Commission") to establish speed limits on multiple lane, limited access state highways. More specifically, you ask whether or not the Commission has the authority to establish a speed limit above fifty-five (55) miles per hour but less than the sixty-five (65) miles per hour maximum speed limit set forth in Conn. Public Acts No. 98-181, Sec. 1.
-
You have asked for an opinion regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), originally executed April 25, 1994, between the State of Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe ("Tribe") which permits the Tribe to operate video facsimile games as long as the Tribe contributes to the State a percentage of the revenue generated from those games in accordance with the terms of the MOU. In particular, a dispute has arisen between the Division of Special Revenue ("Division") and the Tribe concerning how to calculate certain payments.
-
In a memorandum dated October 5, 1998, your agency asked for our opinion regarding two questions that have arisen since the issuance of our September 28, 1998 opinion regarding Public Act 98-111. The first question asks the following: 1) A review of the opinion would seem to indicate that an individual convicted of, for example, C.G.S. Sec. 53a-71(a)(1), and sentenced to a term of probation commencing September 28, 1998 would not have to be registered under either Public Act 97-183 or Public Act. 98-111. Your second question is as follows: 2) Section 3(b) of the Act provides that any individual who has been subject to the registration requirements of Public Act 97-183 must register under Public Act 98-111 in the manner required for sexually violent offenders.
-
This letter responds to the March 25, 1993, inquiry of Assistant Treasurer Lawrence A. Wilson wherein he asked whether the Connecticut Bar Foundation, Inc. may invest Interest On Lawyers' Trust Account ("IOLTA") funds in the State's Short-Term Investment Fund ("STIF").
-
This is in response to your memorandum dated September 22, 1993 wherein you request our opinion on whether the members of the Connecticut Pilot Commission ("Commission") have a right to defense by the State of Connecticut and indemnification should the exercise of their duties as Commission members result in litigation against them in their official or individual capacities.
-
This is in response to your department's request for a formal opinion from this office as to whether or not Section 3-7 of the General Statutes is applicable to certain internal service/revolving funds administered by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS). Your department's request focuses on whether monies owed to the funds by other State agencies may be cancelled from the books of DAS or otherwise compromised in accordance with the provisions of Section 3-7.
-
You ask in your letter to this office whether Conn.Pub.Act No. 93-435, § 87(b) violates Art. II, Conn. Const., relating to the separation of powers. You suggest that this question arises because the legislature would be imposing the UAPA rule-making procedure of the executive branch upon the probate courts.
-
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").
-
You have requested our opinion regarding the temporary rules and regulations of the Department of Revenue Services under Conn. Pub. Act 91-3, ee 51 to 93, of the June 1991 Special Session, as amended (the "Public Act"). The Public Act is entitled "An Act Making Appropriations for the Expenses of the State for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992, Providing Funds for Such Expenses and Concerning Fiscal Reform." Sections 51 to 93 of the Public Act relate to the state income tax.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.