Formal Opinions
Page 6 of 42
-
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
-
This is in response to your request for opinion dated January 10, 1990, regarding whether vacant parcels qualify for inclusion under the Private College and General Hospital Grant Program, Conn. Gen. Stat. e 12-20a, which provides municipalities with a grant in lieu of property taxes for certain educational and medical facilities located in such municipalities which provide regional and statewide benefits.
-
This is in response to your request for advice dated November 16, 1989 in which you ask "whether the unclassified employees of a board of trustees of any constituent unit of the state system of higher education who are members of ARP are actually subject to the dictates of this arbitration award, [on state employees retirement benefits] specifically Issue 17 ... which mandated that the members of the Alternate Retirement Program (ARP) be provided with Social Security coverage effective July 1, 1989."
-
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 a request for advice from fromer President Pro Tempore John B. Larson in which he asked if owners of commercial or residential rental properties are required to permit telecommunications providers access to their buildings prior to adoption of implementing regulations by the Department of Public Utility Control.
-
In your letter of September 9, 1999, you asked us whether an active judge participating in the Judges, Family Support Magistrates, and Compensation Commissioners Retirement System (hereinafter referred to as the judges retirement system) may concurrently receive a benefit from the State Employees Retirement Fund (SERF).
-
By letter dated March 28, 2000 you requested an opinion as to whether Substitute Senate Bill 311, "An Act Concerning The Observance of Martin Luther King Day," if enacted, would unconstitutionally impair a municipality's contracts with its employee collective bargaining units."
-
Inquiry into whether the Chairperson of the State Teachers' Retirement Board can be elected by memebers of the Board
-
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
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion from this office regarding the constitutionality of provisions of the proposed interstate banking bill which would set interest rate caps on credit cards as a condition of entry by out-of-state bank holding companies, out-of-state savings and loan holding companies, out-of-state banks, out-of-state savings banks, and out-of-state savings and loan associations.
-
You have asked for our opinion on whether the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 38a -816(15) apply to out-of-state health care providers who provide health care to Connecticut residents
-
Your staff has explained the background as follows. A number of months ago, a feral dog pack was found roaming around the Southern Connecticut State University area
-
You have asked for advice with regard to the impact on state tax laws of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health regarding same-sex marriages
-
Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, Formal Opinion 2008-019, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
This is a formal legal opinion in response to several questions that you raised concerning the ramifications of the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
