state to respect the laws and actions of-the other states, the Constitution “alter[ed] the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereign-ties, each free to ignore the obligations created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings of the others, and [made] them integral parts of a single nation throughout which a remedy upon a just obligation might be demanded as of right, irrespective of the state of its origin.”' Milwaukee Cnty. v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 277, 56 S.Ct. 229, 80 L.Ed. 220 (1935). And while neither Florida nor any other state is required to give full faith and credit to another state’s laws and judgments that conflict with that state’s legitimate public policy, see, e.g., Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 422, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Johnson v. Lincoln Square Props., Inc., 571
holding this rule does not deny full faith and credit holding that the full faith and credit clause does not require a forum to apply the sovereign immunity doctrine of another state if such an application would violate the forums legitimate public policies holding that a judgment of another states court is entitled to full faith and credit j when the judgment is considered final under the laws of the rendering state 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 holding that texas is required to extend full faith and credit to valid judgments from other states