Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc.
United States Supreme Court
486 U.S. 888, 108 S. Ct. 2218, 100 L. Ed. 2d 896 (1988)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Midwesco Enterprises, Inc. (Midwesco) (defendant), an Illinois corporation, delivered and installed a boiler system at an Ohio plant owned by Bendix Autolite Corporation (Bendix) (plaintiff), an Ohio corporation. Six years later, Bendix sued Midwesco in federal district court in Ohio, arguing that Midwesco had breached the parties’ contract by improperly installing the boiler. Ohio imposed a four-year statute of limitations on breach-of-contract cases but allowed indefinite tolling of the statute for claims against out-of-state entities that had not designated an Ohio registered agent for service of process. The state also had a long-arm statute that would have allowed Bendix to serve Midwesco within the four-year statute of limitations, but Bendix instead relied on the tolling provision. Midwesco asserted the statute of limitations as a defense, arguing that Ohio’s tolling provision violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution as well as the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, and the court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
