The constitutional full faith and credit clause requires each state to give effect to official acts of other states. (Nevada v. Hall (1979) 440 U.S. 410, 422 99 S. Ct. 1182, 1189, 59 L. Ed. 2d 416.) However, "precedence differentiates the credit owed to laws (legislative measures and common law) and to judgments." (Baker v. General Motors Corp. (1998) 522 U.S. 222, 232 118 S. Ct. 657, 663, 139 L. Ed. 2d 580.) The obligation is "exacting" as to judgments. (Id. at p. 233 118 S. Ct. at p. 664.) A judgment entered in one state must be respected in another provided that the first state had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. (Nevada v. Hall, supra, 440 U.S. 410, 422 99 S. Ct. 1182, 1189.) Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that "credit must be given to the judgment of another state although the forum state would not be required to entertain the suit on which the judgment was founded." (Milwaukee County v. White Co. (1935) 296 U.S. 268, 277 56 S. Ct. 229, 234, 80 L. Ed. 220.) "For claim and issue preclusion (res judicata) purposes, in other words, the judgment of the rendering State gains nationwide force." (Baker v. General Motors Corp., supra, 522 U.S. at p. 233 118 S. Ct. at p. 664.) The same rule, however, does not necessarily apply to statutory law. "The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel 'a state to substitute the statutes of other states for its own statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is competent to legislate.' " (Baker v. General Motors Corp., supra, 522 U.S. at p. 232 118 S. Ct. at p. 663.) Indeed, as the Supreme Court in Nevada v. Hall, supra, 440 U.S. 410, observed, the full faith and credit clause does not require a state to apply another state's statutory law in violation of its own legitimate public policy. (Id. at p. 422 99 S. Ct. at p. 1189; see also Pacific Ins. Co. v. Comm'n (1938) 306 U.S. 493, 502-505 59 S. Ct. 629, 633-634, 83 L. Ed. 940.)