Id. at 386. The court recognized that the tolling provision could not constitutionally be applied to any travel by Cheng related to interstate commerce and that a remand was necessary to determine the specific reasons for Cheng's out-of-state travel. Id. at 388-89. 40 . This question was much litigated in the intermediate courts of Ohio. Compare Permanent Gen. Ins. Cos. v. Dressler, 130 Ohio App.3d 628, 720 N.E.2d 959, 961 (1998) ("Dressler, a resident of Ohio, amenable to service, left the state to vacation. Surely the act of vacationing out of state implicates interstate commerce. An entire industry has grown around the simple act of leaving one's home for a short respite in another state or another country.") with Lovejoy v. Macek, 122 Ohio App.3d 558, 702 N.E.2d 457, 462 (1997) (<HOLDING>). The Ohio Supreme Court in Johnson v. Rhodes
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 recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce holding sixtonineday absence from ohio for vacation purposes does not rise to the level of an act engaging in interstate commerce mooting question of whether absence to attend college is interstate commerce holding that commerce clause authorizes congress to punish any particular criminal action even without proof of a relation to interstate commerce when the activity is part of a class of activities determined by congress to affect interstate commerce recognizing power of states to engage in some regulation of interstate commerce