Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): arises between two states’ statutes of limitations, the Restatement provides: An action will be maintained if it is not barred by the statute of limitations of the forum, even though it would be barred by the statute of limitations of another state. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 142(2). Section 142(2) thus requires Ohio courts to apply Ohio’s statute of limitations to breach of contract actions brought in Ohio, even if the action would be time-barred in another state. See Males v. W.E. Gates & Associates, 29 Ohio Misc.2d 13, 504 N.E.2d 494, 494-95 (Ohio Com.Pl.1985) (applying Ohio’s fifteen-year statute of limitations to a breach of contract action that would have been barred by Virginia’s five-year statute); cf. Mahalsky v. Salem Tool Co., 461 F.2d 581, 586 (6th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>); Mackey v. Judy’s Foods, Inc., 867 F.2d 325, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that constitutional error was waived even though petitioner repeatedly used the phrase full faith and credit because petitioner did not cite to the federal constitution or to any cases relying on the full faith and credit clause of the federal constitution (B) holding that the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to apply another states law in violation of its own legitimate public policy (C) holding this rule does not deny full faith and credit (D) holding that puerto rican judgments are entitled to full faith and credit (E) holding that texas is required to extend full faith and credit to valid judgments from other states
Output (English): holding that the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to apply another states law in violation of its own legitimate public policy