context: Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws SS 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.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 461 F.2d 581, 586
citation_a.parenthetical: holding this rule does not deny full faith and credit
citation_a.sentence: 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 this rule does not deny full faith and credit); Mackey v. Judy’s Foods, Inc., 867 F.2d 325, 328-29 (6th Cir.1989) (affirming the district court’s application of a similar rule in Tennessee). There is no question that this rule is both fair and constitutional.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: 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
citation_b.sentence: 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 this rule does not deny full faith and credit); Mackey v. Judy’s Foods, Inc., 867 F.2d 325, 328-29 (6th Cir.1989) (affirming the district court’s application of a similar rule in Tennessee). There is no question that this rule is both fair and constitutional.