Formal Opinions
Page 32 of 42
-
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.
-
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?
-
We are responding to your request for the opinion of this office as to whether your department is legally authorized to renew an existing special two year general assistance contract with one municipality in light of the facts that the authorization of the original enabling legislation has expired and the most recent session of the General Assembly failed to enact Proposed Bill No. 5301 which would have extended such enabling legislation.
-
This letter is in response to your request for advice concerning the State Insurance Purchasing Board's authority to obtain surety bonds for members of the board of directors of the Connecticut Convention Center Authority.
-
By letter dated December 2, 1992, you have requested an opinion as to whether the State Employees' Retirement Commission [hereinafter Commission or SERC] has the authority to place Nicholas A. Cioffi, who joined the State Employees' Retirement System [hereinafter SERS or the Retirement System] after July 1, 1984, in Tier I of that system, with no Social Security coverage.
-
You have requested our advice on several questions related to 1992 Conn. Public Act 92-158, An Act Concerning Extending Continuation Benefits to the Unemployed (hereinafter "Public Act 92-158"). Public Act 92-158 amended Conn. Gen. Stat. e 38a-538, which requires employers to offer employees whose employment has terminated for reasons other than death the option to purchase continued health insurance coverage under the employer's group health plan at the same group rate. Public Act 92-158 extended the time period for such continuation coverage from 78 weeks to 104 weeks.
-
You have asked our opinion on whether a firefighter injured in the line of duty on April 5, 1997 is eligible for benefits from the Connecticut State Firefighters Association under the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 3-123, as amended by Public Act 98-263.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether the two-store limit rule in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-48a bars the issuance of a package store permit to Jaimax, Inc. for premises at 701 North Colony Road, Wallingford, CT.
-
This is in response to your letter of November 27, 1996, in which you requested the opinion of this office as to whether the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (hereinafter "CHRO") retains jurisdiction pursuant to Public Act 96-241 Section 1, to process discriminatory practice complaints filed on or before January 1, 1996 when CHRO has issued a finding of reasonable cause or no reasonable cause not later than January 1, 1997, and one of the following circumstances applies: The Complainant has requested reconsideration and the reconsideration request is pending action by the Commission on January 1, 1997. The Complainant has requested reconsideration, the Commission has reconsidered the complaint, and the Commission's investigator is conducting additional investigation pursuant to the Commission's reconsideration. The Complainant has appealed the Commission's determination (merit assessment review or no reasonable cause) to court, the appeal is pending on January 1, 1997 and the court subsequently remands the case to the Commission for further investigation. The Complainant has appealed the Commission's determination of no reasonable cause to court and the court already has remanded the case to the Commission. The Attorney General or Commission Counsel have withdrawn or withdraw after January 1, 1997, the certification of the complaint to public hearing for further investigation.
-
In your letter dated June 20. 1996, you requested our opinion as to whether the Commissioner of Higher Education must obtain authorization of the Governor under Conn. Gen. Stat. §3-7 prior to forgiving under Conn. Gen. Stat. §10a-163(f)(4) an uncollectible loan made pursuant to the Teacher Incentive Loan Program.
-
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.
-
The issue addressed in this opinion is whether Special Revenue Investigators may carry firearms.1 Special Revenue Investigators are employed by the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) to investigate violations of the state's legalized gambling laws. In addition, they are statutorily granted the powers of State Police to make arrests for criminal offenses2 arising from the operation or conduct of the State's off-track betting and lottery.
-
You have asked for our opinion whether the provisions of 1987 Conn. Pub. Acts No. 87-554, Sec. 10.(c), now Conn. Gen. Stat. e 54-211(c), should be applied retroactively to a claim which arose prior to the effective date of the act.
-
This is in reply to your letter asking whether the awarding of the Mid-Connecticut Project contract by the Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) to Combustion Engineering, Inc., complied with statutory requirements.
-
In your letter of February 11, 1993, you ask whether the State of Connecticut, as a creditor, is disabled from being the assignee of a Connecticut lottery winner because of a regulation which prohibits any assignment of lottery funds.