In the case of Ohio v. Chattanooga Boiler & Tank Co., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chattanooga Boiler & Tank Co., a Tennessee corporation, which was sued by Ohio for damages to one of its highways caused by an overweight truck owned and operated by the company. The court held that service upon an unauthorized foreign corporation doing business within a state is not sufficient to bring it before the courts unless there has been compliance with statutory provisions requiring appointment of agents on whom process may be served or other equivalent measures ensuring due notice and opportunity to defend are provided. In this case, no such agent had been appointed nor were any equivalent measures taken; hence, despite having committed tortious acts within Ohio's borders, Chattanooga could not be subjected to suit without violating principles of due process under Fourteenth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Ohio v. Chattanooga Boiler & Tank Co., Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of jurisdiction and due process. He contended that merely sending an agent into another state to negotiate contracts did not constitute "doing business" in that state, as defined by previous case law. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that such activities could justify personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations under Ohio law or satisfy constitutional requirements for due process. In his view, this interpretation expanded states' power to regulate interstate commerce beyond permissible limits and infringed upon federal authority in this area.