from one State to another, in the course of which the vehicles cross the State line, clearly constitutes interstate commerce. Employees of a carrier so engaged, whose duties directly affect the safety of operation of such vehicles, are within the exemption in accordance with principles previously stated. The result is no different where the vehicles do not actually cross State lines but operate solely within a single State, if what is being transported is actually moving in interstate commerce.” (citations omitted)). The parties agree that Winn and Coleman transported items between two points within the State he Motor Carrier Act exemption applied to drivers who performed solely intrastate transportation of petroleum products that originated out of the state); Shew, 370 F.2d at 380-81 (<HOLDING>); Opelika, 299 F.2d 37, at 40-41 (holding that
holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding misrepresentation made by outofstate defendant to texas plaintiff who relied on it in texas satisfied requirement for jurisdiction under longarm statute based on commission of a tort in part in texas holding that local delivery drivers operate in interstate commerce when they drive vehicles loaded with goods that were shipped to texas from another state temporarily stored at a warehouse in texas then delivered to a texas customer via local delivery drivers holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce holding that dairy products that originated outside of texas and shipped to texas then stopped in dallas were part of a continuous movement in interstate commerce the truck drivers who delivered the products locally in texas were engaged in interstate commerce for purpose of the motor carrier act exemption