The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
Formal Opinions
Page 31 of 42
-
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
-
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
-
This formal opinion responds to several questions that the Department of Public Health (“Department”) has asked concerning the effect the decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health
-
You requested an opinion regarding the scope of our Supreme Court’s decision in American Promotional Events, Inc., v. Blumenthal, 285 Conn. 192 (2008)
-
2019-03 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut
Whether 2019 Senate Bill 64 (An Act Concerning Captive Audience Meetings) and 2019 Senate Bill 440 (An Act Protecting Employee Freedom of Speech and Conscience) are preempted by the federal National Labor Relations Act
-
2019-01 Formal Opinion Attorney General State of Connecticut
Constitutionality of eliminating the religious exemption for required immunizations, as set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10-204a(a)
-
You have asked for an opinion as to the possible overcollection of sales tax on certain food items by supermarket vendors and the receipt of such overcollected taxes by the Department of Revenue Services ("DRS"). Specifically, you have asked for an opinion as to two questions: (1) Is DRS obligated to inform the retailer of its miscollection of taxes? and (2) Is the State obligated to disgorge the overtaxation received and is the retailer obligated to disgorge to consumers the taxation collected?
-
You have asked for a formal legal opinion regarding the recommendation by the Judicial Selection Commission of Joseph Mengacci for nomination as a judge. You ask specifically what actions constitute "consideration" of a candidate's application by the Judicial Selection Commission (hereinafter "Commission"). As you set forth in your letter, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-44a(l) prohibits a former Commission member from being "considered for recommendation to the governor for nomination as a judge" for two years after termination of his tenure on the Commission.
-
A recent inquiry from the City of Waterbury has brought to our attention that some marshals are charging a fee of fifteen per cent of the amount of taxes collected for the service of alias tax warrants under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-261 as amended by Public Act No.03-224.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on the lawfulness of a proposed entertainment program at liquor permit premises involving the playing of poker for prizes. The proposal comes in the wake of recent announcements outlawing the betting on poker tournaments due to criminal laws against gambling.
-
This letter responds to your August 3, 2004 amended request for a formal opinion as to whether Dr. D. Ray Sirry, the Juan F. Court Monitor, would be entitled to indemnification from the State in connection with services he has agreed to provide to the State to assist it in implementing reforms at the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS).
-
I write in response to your letters, which request my interpretation of Connecticut's General Statutes as they pertain to the legality of same sex marriages in our state. Specifically, you wish to know whether local officials may issue marriage licenses to, or perform marriage ceremonies for, same sex couples.
-
As you have described in prior communications, including your recent letter to me dated April 28, 2004, the Office of Policy and Management ("OPM") and the Department of Public Works ("DPW") have been attempting to make an appropriate and beneficial disposition of certain surplus State property, namely the property and facilities known as the Norwich State Hospital (the "Hospital"). You previously requested and received from me a formal opinion (dated April 12, 2004) treating certain questions regarding the legal ramifications of allowing a consultant to the State, named Spaulding & Slye, to submit a competitive proposal for its own purchase and development of the Hospital after it had worked for many months, under contract to the State, studying the possible development and sale of the Hospital, and helping to solicit and evaluate proposals for the property from other parties.
-
In response to then Commissioner Joxel Garcia's and Chairman Murphy's requests, this is a formal opinion responding to the following questions: 1) Does "phototherapy" as used in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 20-34, incorporate the use of "laser therapy equipment"?; 2) Does the State Board of Natureopathic Examiners have the authority to expand its scope of practice either with or without the consent of the Commissioner?; 3) Does the Department of Health's use of the 1997 Connecticut Medical Examining Board's "declaratory ruling on use of hair removal" to prohibit a licensed natureopathic physician from employing laser hair removal constitute an unfair restriction of trade?
-
In separate letters to us you requested our advice on two questions concerning indemnification of state marshals. Your first question seeks our opinion on whether state marshals serving capias warrants on behalf of Support Enforcement Services are entitled to indemnification by the State of Connecticut. Your second question asks whether state marshals who train new appointees would be indemnified under Connecticut General Statutes § 4-165.