62 Cited authorities

  1. Mandarin v. Wildenstein

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 741 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 1,243 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that adequately pleading unjust enrichment requires a plaintiff to allege "that the other party was enriched, at that party's expense, and that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the other party to retain what is sought to be recovered"
  2. Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors

    98 N.Y.2d 136 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 1,504 times
    Holding that contract requiring snow removal service to plow when snow accumulation reached three inches was "not the type of 'comprehensive and exclusive' property maintenance obligation contemplated" by previous case law
  3. Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A.

    459 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006)   Cited 898 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an aiding and abetting claim under New York law requires "an allegation that such defendant had actual knowledge of the breach of duty"
  4. Derdiarian v. Felix Contr Co.

    51 N.Y.2d 308 (N.Y. 1980)   Cited 1,742 times
    Holding that the negligence of a driver did not negate a contractor's failure to safeguard an excavation site, and that "[b]ecause questions concerning what is foreseeable and what is normal may be the subject of varying inferences, as is the question of negligence itself, these issues generally are for the fact finder to resolve"
  5. Milanese v. Rust-Oleum Corp.

    244 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2001)   Cited 496 times
    Holding that when motion to amend is brought in response to motion for summary judgment, the amendment is futile if summary judgment is inevitable
  6. Abdullah v. American Airlines, Inc.

    181 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 182 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state aviation safety standards are preempted but that state remedies are available for injuries resulting from violations of federal standards
  7. Rosenberg v. Metlife, Inc.

    8 N.Y.3d 359 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 141 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding absolute privilege because of "Form U-5's compulsory nature"; "its role in the [FINRA's] quasi-judicial process"; and "the protection of public interests"
  8. Uhr v. East Greenbush Central School District

    94 N.Y.2d 32 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that statute did not imply private right of action and affirming dismissal of common law negligence claim based on same conduct
  9. Drake v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

    147 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 1998)   Cited 87 times
    Finding no implied right of action for employees under Federal Aviation Administration drug testing regulations
  10. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Seidman

    95 N.Y.2d 702 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 73 times
    Finding that "there was no 'linking conduct' that put SIPC and BDO in a relationship approaching privity," where "BDO's audits were not prepared for the specific benefit of SIPC, were not sent to SIPC, were not read by SIPC"
  11. Section 40101 - Policy

    49 U.S.C. § 40101   Cited 498 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled substances" is "in the public interest"
  12. Section 1261 - Definitions

    15 U.S.C. § 1261   Cited 234 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining "hazardous substance" as one that is "flammable or combustible," among other qualifying characteristics
  13. § 40.1 Who does this regulation cover?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.1   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) This part tells all parties who conduct drug and alcohol tests required by Department of Transportation (DOT) agency regulations how to conduct these tests and what procedures to use. (b) This part concerns the activities of transportation employers, safety-sensitive transportation employees (including self-employed individuals, contractors and volunteers as covered by DOT agency regulations), and service agents. (c) Nothing in this part is intended to supersede or conflict with the implementation

  14. § 40.3 What do the terms used in this part mean?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.3   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Defining "employee" including "individuals currently performing safety-sensitive functions designated in DOT agency regulations ...."
  15. § 40.123 What are the MRO's responsibilities in the DOT drug testing program?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.123   Cited 19 times

    As an MRO, you have the following basic responsibilities: (a) Acting as an independent and impartial “gatekeeper” and advocate for the accuracy and integrity of the drug testing process. (b) Providing a quality assurance review of the drug testing process for the specimens under your purview. This includes, but is not limited to: (1) Ensuring the review of the CCF on all specimen collections for the purposes of determining whether there is a problem that may cause a test to be cancelled (see §§ 40

  16. § 40.153 How does the MRO notify employees of their right to a test of the split specimen?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.153   Cited 12 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) As the MRO, when you have verified a drug test as positive for a drug or drug metabolite, or as a refusal to test because of adulteration or substitution, you must notify the employee of his or her right to have the split specimen tested. You must also notify the employee of the procedures for requesting a test of the split specimen. (b) You must inform the employee that he or she has 72 hours from the time you provide this notification to him or her to request a test of the split specimen. (c)

  17. § 40.87 What are the cutoff concentrations for drug tests?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.87   Cited 11 times   2 Legal Analyses

    (a) As a laboratory, you must use the cutoff concentrations displayed in the following table for initial and confirmatory drug tests. All cutoff concentrations are expressed in nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). The table follows: 1 For grouped analytes (i.e, two or more analytes that are in the same drug class and have the same initial test cutoff): Immunoassay: The test must be calibrated with one analyte from the group identified as the target analyte. The cross-reactivity of the immunoassay to

  18. § 40.61 What are the preliminary steps in the collection process?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.61   Cited 10 times
    Prohibiting testing "by catherization or other means"
  19. § 40.137 On what basis does the MRO verify test results involving marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, semi-synthetic opioids, or PCP?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.137   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) As the MRO, you must verify a confirmed positive test result for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, semi-synthetic opioids (i.e, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and oxymorphone), and/or PCP unless the employee presents a legitimate medical explanation for the presence of the drug(s)/metabolite(s) in his or her system. In determining whether an employee's legally valid prescription consistent with the Controlled Substances Act for a substance in these categories constitutes a legitimate

  20. § 40.171 How does an employee request a test of a split specimen?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.171   Cited 8 times

    (a) As an employee, when the MRO has notified you that you have a verified positive drug test and/or refusal to test because of adulteration or substitution, you have 72 hours from the time of notification to request a test of the split specimen. The request may be verbal or in writing. If you make this request to the MRO within 72 hours, you trigger the requirements of this section for a test of the split specimen. There is no split specimen testing for an invalid result. (b)(1) If, as an employee

  21. § 40.355 What limitations apply to the activities of service agents?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.355   Cited 7 times   2 Legal Analyses

    As a service agent, you are subject to the following limitations concerning your activities in the DOT drug and alcohol testing program. (a) You must not require an employee to sign a consent, release, waiver of liability, or indemnification agreement with respect to any part of the drug or alcohol testing process covered by this part (including, but not limited to, collections, laboratory testing, MRO, and SAP services). No one may do so on behalf of a service agent. (b) You must not act as an intermediary

  22. § 40.131 How does the MRO or DER notify an employee of the verification process after receiving laboratory confirmed non-negative drug test results?

    49 C.F.R. § 40.131   Cited 6 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the MRO must "actually talk to the employee" regarding the outcome of the test, but if the employee declines to speak with the MRO, then staff under the MRO's personal supervision can record that information before the MRO certifies the test