In the case of Atlantic Refining Co. v. Virginia, 1937, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over interstate commerce and taxation laws. The Atlantic Refining Company was an oil company incorporated in Pennsylvania that sold petroleum products to customers in Virginia through its sales office located there. However, it did not own or control any property within Virginia other than the inventory of its sales office which was replenished from out-of-state refineries as needed for sale to local customers. The state of Virginia imposed a tax on every foreign corporation doing business within its borders based on their capital used in the state during the taxable year. The Atlantic Refining Company challenged this tax arguing that it violated both due process clause and commerce clause of US Constitution because they were being taxed for goods stored outside state boundaries. However, after reviewing all arguments presented by both parties involved, Supreme Court ruled against Atlantic Refining Co., stating that since these goods were intended for sale within Virginia's market and contributed towards company's profits generated from business activities conducted inside state lines; therefore such taxes didn't violate constitutional provisions related to interstate commerce or due process rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Atlantic Refining Co. v. Virginia, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring out-of-state corporations to consent to being sued in local courts as a condition of doing business within its borders violated principles of interstate commerce and due process. The dissent contended that such laws unfairly burdened out-of-state companies by forcing them into potentially unfavorable legal jurisdictions without their voluntary agreement or any wrongdoing on their part. Furthermore, they believed this ruling could lead states to enact even more restrictive regulations on foreign corporations, further impeding free trade among states and undermining national economic unity. They also expressed concern about potential abuses of power by individual states at the expense of non-resident defendants' rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.