2006 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 2
-
As you know, Section 31-57f of the Connecticut General Statutes provides for the payment of a standard wage rate to certain service workers employed by contractors of the state or its agents.
-
You have asked for an opinion on the following two questions: 1. Does a municipal corporation have the authority to set different mill rates for the taxation of non-vehicle personal property and real property located within the same municipal tax or sub tax district? 2. Does OPM have the authority to pursue a reimbursement, either by direct payment or by offsetting the pending claim of the City of Stamford, for grant claims it has paid based upon Grand List years 1999, 2000 and 2001?
-
You have requested an opinion on whether the one million dollar annual cap on assessments by the Connecticut Siting Council (“Council”) contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-50v (b)(1) is a cap on assessments on individual energy companies or a cap on total assessments on the energy industry as a whole.
-
You ask for our opinion on whether you may issue rulings on two issues that have been presented to you: (1) whether to approve the party designation "Independent Party" proposed by the Independent Party of Waterbury in connection with an anticipated gubernatorial candidacy
-
This opinion is in response to your letter dated June 19, 2006, requesting advice as to certain issues relating to the Connecticut estate tax that arise from legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 2005.
-
This letter is in response to a request from Karen McDonough, Division Counsel for the Office of the Comptroller’s Retirement and Benefit Services Division, for a legal opinion as to whether the State of Connecticut will recognize a same-sex domestic partnership entered in Seattle, Washington, by a retired Connecticut state employee.
-
Honorable Nancy Wyman, Comptroller, Formal Opinion 2006-004, Attorney General, State of Connecticut
You have asked for a formal legal opinion concerning the State's options when a pharmacy that is part of the State's network of provider pharmacies refuses to dispense a certain prescription drug to covered members of the State's prescription drug insurance plans.
-
I am writing in response to your request that I review the proposal for needy Connecticut citizens to receive heating oil assistance from Citizens Energy through its agreement with CITGO, a major oil refiner in the United States owned by a company controlled by the Venezuelan government.
-
You asked for a formal opinion concerning the Superior Court’s scope of review in an appeal of a municipal commission's decision on an affordable housing application under the Affordable Housing Land Use Appeals Procedure set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. §8-30g.
-
By request dated June 23, 2006, you have asked for my opinion as to whether Connecticut General Statutes § 4a-59a(b) allows the Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) to extend contracts “up to or beyond one year
-
The Tunxis Management Co. (“Tunxis”) and William A. Tomasso, former president of Tunxis, recently pled guilty to federal charges related to the corrupt relationship between William A. Tomasso, and Peter N. Ellef and Lawrence E. Alibozek, chief of staff and deputy chief of staff to former Governor John G. Rowland, that resulted in the selection of Tunxis for state property management contracts.
-
You have requested our advice on whether volunteers under the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) are protected under Title 28 of the Connecticut General Statutes during the course of their training for, and participation in, civil preparedness activities.
-
You have requested an opinion as to whether, in light of the State Properties Review Board’s (the “SPRB”) March 27, 2006 ratification of the November 2, 2005 Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the State of Connecticut (the “State”) and the Town of Preston
-
Kevin J. Rasch, Esq., Legal Counsel, Formal Opinion 2006-005, Attorney General State of Connecticut
You have requested an opinion concerning a proposed resolution by the City of New London (“City”) to deal with the issue of the continuing possession of certain properties by their former owners after the properties were taken by eminent domain.
-
You have asked my opinion regarding the Judicial Review Council’s obligation to permit public access to records of investigations of complaints of judicial misconduct.