The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1992 Formal Opinions
Page 2 of 3
-
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.
-
By letter dated April 8, 1992, you requested our advice on the obligations of the department of public safety under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-196. You are specifically concerned with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-196 which deals with the issuance of renewal certificates for elevators. You advise us that it is the practice of your department to issue a renewal certificate upon receipt of the appropriate fee and to subsequently inspect the elevator as required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-195. You ask us whether the practice, as you have described it, is consistent with the provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-196.
-
In your letter of May 12, 1992, you join with Howard G. lger, M.D., Chairman of the Board of Pardons, in seeking our opinion as to the respective authority of the Governor and the Board in the granting of pardons for persons sentenced to death.
-
This will respond to your request for an opinion of the Attorney General concerning political activity of commissioners of the Public Utility Control Authority. The provisions of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 16-5 provide that a commissioner may be removed for: "Misconduct, material neglect of duty, incompetence in the conduct of his office, or active participation in political management or campaigns by any commissioner.... In particular you ask whether the following two scenarios present violations: attendance at dinners, or social events (1) in connection with financial contributions to political parties or candidates of such political parties for public office; or (2) in connection with the affairs of the political parties or their candidates, without regard to any financial contributions.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
We are in receipt of a letter dated December 3, 1991, from the Commission's Administrator, John C. Ford, with an attached letter dated October 21, 1991, from Dr. Roger J. Harris. The issue on which you seek our guidance is whether the Commission must conduct an administrative hearing on the individual's application based upon the oral surgeon's letter dated October 21, 1991, which your agency interprets as a request for such a hearing.
-
This letter is in response to your request, dated June 10, 1992, for our opinion concerning access by researchers to identifiable bail commission information.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.).
-
Robert Werner, Division Of Special Revenue, 1992-034 Formal Opinion, Attorney General of Connecticut
You have sought the advice of this office relating to the operation of an off-track betting system in the State of Connecticut. Specifically, you inquire whether, under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-167a(b), the operation of "an OTB betting branch facility in the Hartford Jai Alai Fronton would violate the proscription against locating a 'Facility' within 35 miles of the location of the Teletheater in the Town of Windsor Locks ... ?"
-
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 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?