Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): NLRB v. Princeton Memorial Hosp., 939 F.2d 174, 178 (4th Cir.1991) (quotations omitted) (ellipses in original). In determining whether the employing entity is administered by individuals responsible to public officials for purposes of the political subdivision exemption, courts and the Board generally consider whether a majority of the employer’s governing body — the governing board and executive officers — is appointed by or subject to removal by public officials. See, e.g., Jefferson County, 732 F.2d at 125-26; Truman Med. Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB, 641 F.2d 570, 573 (8th Cir.1981); Economic Sec. Corp., 299 N.L.R.B. 562, 1990 WL 272722, at *2 & n. 10; Woodbury County Community Action Agency Employer, 299 N.L.R.B. 554, 1990 WL 267415, at *2; see also Princeton Memorial Hosp., 939 F.2d at 179 (<HOLDING>). Courts and the Board also consider whether 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that procedural unconscionability existed where a nursing home residents daughter met with the homes administrator for about five minutes during which time she was presented with a thirtyseven page document that included an arbitration clause and instructed that her fathers continued stay in the home was conditioned upon her signing the papers which the administrator flipped through and presented the signature pages (B) holding nursing home was political subdivision both because homes directors were responsible to elected officials and because the daytoday administration of center was directly tied to city (C) holding that where plaintiffs were entitled to recover both treble damages and punitive damages under the illinois nursing home care reform act both issues could be submitted to the jury and the plaintiff could choose which award to be reflected in the judgment (D) holding that although the state regulated and subsidized the nursing homes private parties not state officials made the administrative decisions therefore the decisions could not be treated as state action (E) holding that home purchased with spouses separate funds prior to marriage was transmuted into marital property because mortgage payments made from joint account home was used as marital residence and both parties devoted resources and energy into home
Output (English): holding that home purchased with spouses separate funds prior to marriage was transmuted into marital property because mortgage payments made from joint account home was used as marital residence and both parties devoted resources and energy into home