Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Second, Defendants raise the possibility that Venezuela law, rather than Ohio law, applies to the equitable estoppel theory. “[I]n FSIA cases, [the Court] use[s] the forum state’s choice of law rules to resolve all issues, except jurisdictional ones.” O’Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361, 381 (6th Cir.2009) (internal quotations omitted). Under Ohio law, “if two jurisdictions apply the same law, or would reach the same result applying their respective laws, a choice of law determination is unnecessary because there is no conflict, and the laws of the forum state apply.” Wendy’s Intern., Inc. v. Illinois Union Insur. Co., No. 2:05-cv-803, 2007 WL 710242, at *5 (S.D.Ohio Mar. 6, 2007); see also Glidden Co. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 112 Ohio St.3d 470, 474-75, 861 N.E.2d 109 (Ohio 2006) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the party seeking application of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that in cases of a false conflict of law a court may apply the law of the forum state (B) holding that an actual conflict between ohio law and the law of another jurisdiction must exist for a choiceoflaw analysis to be undertaken (C) recognizing conflict between prior precedents on whether jurisdiction is question of law or fact (D) holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed (E) holding that atca establishes cause of action for violations of international law but requiring the district court to perform a traditional choiceoflaw analysis to determine whether international law law of forum state or law of state where events occurred should provide substantive law in such an action
Output (English): recognizing conflict between prior precedents on whether jurisdiction is question of law or fact