A woman in one state is suing a woman in another state for $25,000. Which one of the following statements is accurate regarding the jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed?
A. The court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident.
B. The court has exclusive jurisdiction over the nonresident.
C. Since the women live in different states, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction.
D. The courts in both states share concurrent jurisdiction in this case.

C is this correct?

So. Pacific Co. v Arizona (1945) demonstrates that state laws might violate the Commerce Clause even when in-state and out-of-state commerce are treated equally. The case involved a challenge to Arizona's law prohibiting trains from crossing the state that contained more than 70 freight cars. Southern Pacific complained that the law required them to choose between disassembling at the Arizona border larger trains, making two runs across the state, and then reassembling the trains or avoiding Arizona altogether. Arizona argued the law was a safety measure designed to minimize the risk of "slack action" accidents to which longer trains are susceptible. The Court applied a test that balanced the state's safety interest against what it saw as the very substantial burden the law imposed on interstate commerce. The law was struck down. The same test was used in 1959 to strike down an Illinois law requiring trucks to have contoured rear fender mudguards rather than the straight mud guard flaps required by most other states (Bibb v Navajo Freight) and in 1978 to invalidate a Wisconsin law that limited truck length to 55 feet at a time when most long haul truck lines had gone to 65 foot trucks (Raymond Motor Transportation v Rice).

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/statecommerce.htm

The issue is what limitations does the Commerce Clause place on