Formal Opinions
Page 3 of 42
-
I write to advise you that you can and should release all information concerning provider rate reimbursement. You have the authority to disclose such provider rate reimbursement information that has been produced to you by Medicaid Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”). You should reject assertions by the MCOs that the information must be kept confidential under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the terms of their contracts with the Department of Social Services (“DSS”).
-
Honorable J. Robert Galvin, M.D., M.P.H., 2005-022 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
Your department has requested advice on whether marriages performed on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Ledyard are valid under state law.
-
Honorable J. Robert Galvin, 2005-024 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
This letter is in response to a request from Elizabeth Frugale, Registrar of Vital Records, for a legal opinion as to whether Connecticut courts will recognize out-of-state civil unions, same-sex marriages and same-sex domestic partnerships after Connecticut's Act Concerning Civil Unions, 2005 Conn. Pub. Act No. 05-10 (the "Act" or "P.A. 05-10"), takes effect on October 1, 2005. In particular, Ms. Frugale has asked whether, after October 1st, a couple that has entered into a civil union, same-sex marriage, or domestic partnership out-of-state may legally enter into a civil union in Connecticut with the same partner.1 Because this issue is of statewide interest and importance, we are addressing our response to you in the form of a formal legal opinion.
-
As Chairman of the State Marshal Commission you have requested a formal Opinion of the Attorney General as to the following two questions: 1. Are the two ex officio, nonvoting members of the State Marshal Advisory Board, appointed pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6-38b(a), entitled to attend executive sessions of the State Marshal Commission’s meetings? 2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are they entitled to attend all executive sessions, or are there executive sessions they are not entitled to attend? Specifically, are ex officio members entitled to attend executive sessions regarding personnel and disciplinary matters?
-
Your department has requested a formal opinion concerning the following questions: “What impact, if any, does the placement of a lis pendens against property (real estate) have upon the bond limit set for a properly licensed and authorized bondsman, when the property in question has been designated as an asset by the bondsman in the calculation of their authorized bond limit?”
-
2016-02 Formal Opinion, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
Records associated with a conviction for which a conditional pardon has been granted are not subject to erasure under state law.
-
In your letter of January 23, 2003, you have asked this Office for advice regarding the legal authority of the Board of Education for Regional School District No. 8 to create and fund from year to year what is referred to as an accrued liability reserve fund for the stated purpose of paying certain teacher retirement benefits under the terms of the district's collective bargaining agreement with its teachers. You note that the municipalities participating in the district currently pay annual assessments, which are deposited in the reserve fund each year.
-
You have asked whether certain vehicle identification number ("VIN") etching reimbursement products ("the Products") should be regulated as insurance under Title 38a of the Connecticut General Statutes.
-
You have asked for our opinion whether a gasoline retailer who offers a discount for cash paying customers must affirmatively disclose to consumers when such a cash discount does not apply to debit card purchases of gasoline
-
Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, Formal Opinion 2009-008, Attorney General State of Connecticut
This letter responds to your request for a formal legal opinion as to whether Article Fourth, § 16, of the Connecticut constitution permits a Governor to veto individual line items in an appropriations bill
-
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.
-
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.
-
On September 25, 1995, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion concerning the regulation of invalid coach and wheelchair livery services within the State of Connecticut. The Office of Emergency Medical Services ("OEMS") regulates invalid coach service as an ambulance service pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §19a-180. The Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulates the transportation of livery service for the elderly and the handicapped pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §13b-105. Subsequent to the issuance of the opinion, a question has arisen regarding the distinction between invalid coach and wheelchair livery service, and therefore, whether the regulation of a particular transportation service falls under the jurisdiction of OEMS or DOT.
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the current reimbursement system for wheelchair accessible livery under the Department of Social Services (DSS) regulations enacted in 1989.
-
You recently requested an opinion from this office regarding the following question: Whether DRS may disclose information including the names and/or addresses of rebate check payees who, as a result of the U.S. Postal Services or other reasons, did not receive their checks.