Guy Tresillian Helvering
Judge Helvering no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.
How Judge Helvering decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
Helvering looked to operational reality rather than contract labels when deciding whether corporate officers remained employees for tax purposes.
“The Government may look at actualities and upon determination that the form employed for doing business or carrying out the challenged tax event is unreal or a sham may sustain or disregard the effect of the fiction as best serves the purposes of the tax statute.”
He inferred negligence from defendants’ exclusive control of equipment when the fatal injury ordinarily would not have occurred with due care.
“the casualty happened because of the negligence of the said defendants, their agents, servants and employees.”
Procedural preferences
He deferred to agency factfinding when substantial evidence supported the order and the agency had not acted arbitrarily.
“it is not the function of this court to weigh the evidence which was before the Commission or to inquire into the soundness of the reasoning by which the conclusions of the Commission were reached where there was substantial support in the evidence before the Commission for its findings, conclusions, and orders”
He separated service-of-process questions from the distinct inquiry whether a foreign corporation was doing business in the forum.
“The question of the type of agent which may be served with process in order to subject a foreign corporation to the jurisdiction of the court is a separate and dis*645tinct question from that of what constitutes the doing of business by the foreign corporation.”
Cautions
He placed the burden on a habeas petitioner to prove unlawful custody or a constitutional violation.
“the burden of proof rests upon petitioner to establish that he is illegally held in respondent’s custody or deprived of his liberty without due process of law or in derogation of his constitutional rights”
He treated exclusive statutory review channels as binding and declined to decide regulatory validity outside them.
“This Court has no jurisdiction to determine the validity of regulations issued by the Administrator of the Office of Price Administration”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The court concludes as a matter of law that the plaintiffs have failed to establish a right to recover from the defendants in these cases or to establish any claim upon which relief may be granted.”
“the prayer of the plaintiff that the enforcement, operation and execution of the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission of May 22, 1943, and November 8, 1943 (later modified as to effective dates), be suspended, restrained and enjoined should be and the same is hereby denied.”
“proper service of process in this action was had upon them by service upon their agent in this district at that time, and that they are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purposes of this suit.”
“Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction enjoining and restraining the said defendants and each of them from violating the Rent Regulation for Housing and the Emergency Price Control Act”
“he is therefore remanded to the continued custody and control of the respondent until the service of the sentence imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Ot-tumwa Division, is completed or until such sentence is otherwise disposed of or the petitioner discharged according to law.”
“the plaintiff, Marjorie Longan Alexander, have and recover of and from the defendant, Charles Freeman Alexander, the sum of Ten Thousand Two Hundred Twenty ($10,220.-68) Dollárs and Sixty-Eight Cents”
“the said property settlement agreement between the parties insofar as it obligates the defendant to pay and discharge the mortgage debt and satisfy and discharge the deed of trust upon the property commonly known and designated as ‘520 East 54th Street’ in Kansas City, Missouri, is not specifically enforceable”
“The plaintiff is entitled to judgment against said defendants for the sum of $10,-000 and the costs of this action.”
“the writ of habeas corpus herein issued be and the same is hereby discharged, and the petitioner be and he is hereby remanded to the continued custody and control of the respondent”
“the Court finds that both W. D. Fite and C. N. White were employees of the plaintiff corporations, and not independent contractors, within the meaning of Title IX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq., during the taxable period involved in these actions, and that the taxes paid with respect to their services were properly imposed.”
“the seizure of the respondent liquor was lawful, and the same should be forfeited to the libellant in accordance with the provisions of Section 224 of Title 27 U.S.C.A. and in accordance with the prayer of the libel of information.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
No electronic assigned-case cohort was available for caseload analysis.
A historical record
Judge Helvering no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.