Formal Opinions
Page 10 of 42
-
In your letter of May 20, 1994, you inquired whether the State of Connecticut should continue to require car rental companies to be licensed as sellers of gasoline. You explained that some car rental agencies require their customers to return the vehicles with a particular amount of gasoline. If the vehicles are not returned with the requisite amount of gasoline, the agencies will provide gasoline from their own pumps and will charge the customers for the gasoline.
-
This is in response to your letter dated December 1, 1993, in which you request our opinion on whether the Department of Transportation's use of on-call consultants is contrary to the requirements of Sections 13b-20b through 13b-20l of the Connecticut General Statutes. http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/images/rainbow.gif
-
In your letter of June 16, 1994, you ask whether an employee of the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) may, upon election to the General Assembly, continue to hold his employment with CRRA, or be prohibited from holding the CRRA position due to the "dual job ban" set forth in either Conn. Const. Art. III,
-
This is in response to your letter dated January 31, 1994, in which you request a formal opinion of the Attorney General concerning an issue relating to the jurisdiction of the tax review committee (hereinafter "the committee") under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-3a. Please advise me whether the tax review committee has statutory authority to consider and to waive any penalty in excess of one hundred dollars that the Commissioner of Revenue Services has determined not to waive.
-
This letter is in response to your request for our opinion as to whether a pharmacy engages in fee-splitting, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-175(7), if physicians who own stock in the pharmacy receive certain benefits from their stock ownership.
-
You have sought our advice regarding the issue of whether a hospital which has been licensed as a chronic disease hospital may be issued a second chronic disease hospital license for a discrete portion of its premises which it intends to operate as a rehabilitation unit.
-
Prior to the merger of the Department of Health Services and the former Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (CADAC), the Executive Director of CADAC, Dr. John Higgins-Biddle, requested a formal opinion from this Office regarding the impact of the federal regulations concerning confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records, 42 C.F.R. Part 2, or any other pertinent state or federal law or regulation related to patient confidentiality, on a new data system that CADAC was having designed by Andersen Consulting, Inc. After the merger of CADAC into the Department of Public Health and Addiction Services (DPHAS),1 you informed us that your Department is continuing with the development of the proposed data system, that the merger has not affected either the scope or nature of Dr. Higgins-Biddle's previous opinion request, and that you still need advice regarding the questions that he originally posed
-
In your letter of May 12, 1994, you ask about the applicability of Conn. Gen. Stat. 51-44a(j) (non-disclosure of information)1 to evidence introduced at a "hearing" conducted by the Judicial Selection Commission (JSC) as required by 51-44a(e) (procedure for reappointment of judge to same court).
-
You have requested the opinion and advice of the Attorney General regarding the status of the above-entitled case, and the alternatives that are available for the disbursement of funds that will be received by the state following its resolution.
-
Judge Aaron Ment, Supreme Court Building, 1996-011 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
Your office has posited several questions regarding the retroactive versus prospective application of Public Acts 96-63 and 96-79, which amend Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-142a, commonly referred to as the Connecticut Erasure Statute. The primary effects of the amendments are to remove the category of transcripts of criminal trials from the types of records that are subject to erasure, and to delay the actual physical destruction of erased records.
-
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.
-
This is in response to your letter of September 11, 1992 in which you relate that the State Teachers' Retirement Board has requested an opinion of this office on the following question: Does the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act preserve a right for persons covered by the Act to purchase retirement service credit in the State Teachers' Retirement System under the terms of the state law governing such purchases of service credit as were in effect when such persons were inducted into the Armed Forces?
-
You have requested our opinion on two issues raised by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-199 which imposes an athletic tax of five percent of the gross receipts from any boxing exhibition. The first issue is whether the Commissioner of Consumer Protection is responsible for the collection of the tax or whether it is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Revenue Services. The second issue is whether the athletic tax can be waived for United States Amateur Boxing, Inc., due to the fact that it is a non-profit association that is otherwise tax-exempt.
-
This is in response to your letter dated July 23, 1993, wherein you asked our opinion concerning the application of Public Act 93-288 (the Act) to cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for certain injured employees and their dependants.
-
This letter is written in response to your May 3, 1993, request for an opinion on Substitute Senate Bill No. 1055, An Act Concerning Medicare Supplement Policies.