In the case of Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., et al., 1987, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Midwesco Enterprises. The issue at hand was whether an Ohio statute that tolled (paused) the statute of limitations for foreign corporations not obtaining a license to do business in Ohio violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution by discriminating against interstate commerce. In this case, Bendix sued Midwesco for unpaid debts four years after they were due; however, under normal circumstances, Ohio law would have barred such claims after four years from when they became payable unless tolling provisions applied. The court held that while states can control activities within their borders and protect their residents' interests through statutes like these, it becomes unconstitutional if it places burdens on interstate commerce which outweigh those local benefits - as was found here with Ohio's tolling provision being discriminatory towards out-of-state companies who did not obtain licenses to operate there. This decision reinforced principles about balancing state rights versus federal power over interstate commerce and set precedent regarding how far states could go in regulating businesses operating within their boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Ohio's tolling statute as violating the Commerce Clause. He argued that there was no substantial burden on interstate commerce because out-of-state corporations could easily appoint an agent to receive service of process in Ohio and thus avoid application of the tolling statute altogether. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were a burden, it would be justified by Ohio’s interest in ensuring its courts are available to injured parties seeking redress from nonresident businesses operating within its borders. Therefore, according to Justice Scalia, this case did not present a violation of the Commerce Clause.