The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 2 of 42
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion regarding the confidentiality of information that the Department maintains on individuals with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and hepatitis B.
-
In your letter dated September 12, 1991, you asked us whether the conservator of the estate of a disabled child of a deceased member of the State Teachers' Retirement System is eligible for monthly benefits as a legal guardian under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 10-183h(a).
-
You have requested our advice on two questions: (1) Whether under Conn.Gen.Stat. § 12-19a(a), a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (P.I.L.O.T.) grant is payable to a town for a correctional facility if such facility is not on the town's assessment list on the preceding October 1? (2) Whether Public Act No. 91-79, applies to towns that conducted revaluations prior to October 1, 1990 and currently are phasing in such revaluations?
-
This is in response to your request for a formal opinion of the Attorney General, submitted in your capacity as Chairman of the Commission For Child Support Guidelines, on the following two questions: (1) Whether the child support guidelines, promulgated on January 1, 1991, are subject to the legislative review provisions of Public Act 91-209; and (2) Whether the January 1, 1991 child support guidelines, and all future guidelines, are subject to the rule-making procedures under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act.
-
You have requested the opinion of the Attorney General as to whether you have the authority to provide state reimbursement to a town that fails to meet the requirement that two-thirds of the employable general assistance recipients participate in a work or education program in accordance with § 17-281a(a). Conn.Gen.Stat. § 17-281a(f); § 17-292.
-
In your letter of February 27, 1992, you posed the question whether the filing of an annual report by a trustee under mortgage may be waived by the Banking Commissioner.
-
This letter is in response to your memorandum of August 4, 1992, in which you requested our opinion concerning the meaning and enforcement of Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-112. We understand from the correspondence which you provided with your memorandum that you have requested information and documentation from the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS") concerning the agency's processing of state income tax refunds. In particular, you have requested information concerning the numbers of refunds processed, when they were processed, how they were processed and the estimated number of refunds still pending. You have also inquired into possible reasons for any delays including any instructions which the agency may have given or received to delay the refund process or to separate refunds based on their face amount, and any hardware or software problems which may have occurred.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether the Division of Special Revenue must conduct a hearing, under the provisions of the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA), prior to revoking a lottery agent's license1 for failure to meet pre-established minimum sales levels for on-line and instant lottery ticket sales.2 Specifically, you inquire as to whether a lottery license is a "license" as that term is contemplated by the UAPA. We also understand that a question is raised as to the practical need for a hearing inasmuch as evidence of sales levels is documented and, presumably, incontestable.
-
In your letter of June 5, 1992, you requested our opinion regarding the validity of certain legislation proposed by the Department Of Income Maintenance (DIM). That legislation would require any recipient, or any attorney representing such an individual, who initiates a legal action against a third party for recovery of medical expenses, to report the filing of that suit to the Department of Income Maintenance.
-
I am writing in response to your request for an advisory opinion regarding the imposition of sales and use taxes on certain utility companies' purchases of goods to be installed in state facilities in performance of energy conservation measures mandated by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16a-37a and 1991 Conn. Pub. Act No. 91-6 (June Spec. Sess.).
-
This letter is in response to your request, dated June 10, 1992, for our opinion concerning access by researchers to identifiable bail commission information.
-
By letter of February 4, 1992. you requested an opinion of the Attorney General on the State's ability to pursue statutory support obligations against the community (non-institutionalized) spouse of an institutionalized Medicaid patient, in view of certain provisions contained in the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA), Pub.L. 100-360.
-
This is in reply to your request for our opinion of whether the Central Connecticut State University Alumni Association, Inc. (hereinafter "the Association") is a "foundation" as defined by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-37e(2). Foundation status would subject the Association to the requirements of Chapter 47 of the General Statutes (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§4-37e - 4-37i), including possibly full audits by the State Auditors.
-
This is in response to your recent request for an opinion on whether there exists legislative authority for the Division of Special Revenue to institute a "cash" lotto in addition to the other lottery games currently conducted by, or under the authority of, the Division.
-
In your letter of November 25, 1991, you request our guidance concerning the issue of personal liability of state officials in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Hafer v. Melo, 112 S.Ct. 358 (1991). To better respond to the issues posed in your letter, we have framed your inquiry as follows: 1. How does the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Hafer v. Melo affect a state official's exposure to personal liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts performed as part of his official duties? 2. Under what circumstances will the state provide for the defense as well as indemnification of a state official when sued personally pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for acts taken in the course of the performance of his official duties?