Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

In Re Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and TD Ameritrade, Inc. v. the State of Texas

Docket 03-26-00271-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDenied
Filed
Jurisdiction
Texas
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
Type
Lead Opinion
Case type
Civil
Disposition
Denied
Docket
03-26-00271-CV

Original mandamus proceeding challenging a trial-court action, filed in the Court of Appeals from Travis County

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals (Third District) denied a petition for a writ of mandamus brought by Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and TD Ameritrade, Inc. challenging a lower-court action in Travis County. The court issued a short memorandum opinion simply stating the petition is denied and citing the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. No extended reasoning or factual background appears in the document; the decision is a procedural denial of extraordinary relief rather than a merits ruling on underlying claims.

Issue Decided

  • Whether the petitioners were entitled to mandamus relief to correct a trial-court action

Court's Reasoning

The opinion contains only the court's disposition denying the writ and does not set out detailed reasoning. By denying the petition, the court determined the petitioners had not met the standard for extraordinary relief under the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court cited the appellate rule governing disposition of mandamus petitions but provided no further factual or legal analysis.

Authorities Cited

  • Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureTex. R. App. P. 52.8(a)

Parties

Petitioner
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Petitioner
TD Ameritrade, Inc.

Key Dates

Filed
2026-04-23

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Consider seeking relief from the Texas Supreme Court

    If petitioners believe the court erred, they may file a petition for writ of mandamus or other appropriate application with the Texas Supreme Court within applicable deadlines.

  2. 2

    Continue litigation in trial court

    Because mandamus relief was denied, petitioners should proceed with any available motions or defenses in the trial court to address the underlying dispute.

  3. 3

    Consult appellate counsel

    Parties should consult appellate counsel to evaluate whether further appellate options exist and to ensure compliance with procedural deadlines.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?
The court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, meaning it refused to grant the extraordinary relief requested by the petitioners.
Who is affected by this decision?
The immediate parties affected are Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and TD Ameritrade, Inc., as the petitioners seeking mandamus relief; the trial-court action they challenged remains in place.
Does this resolve the underlying dispute?
No. Denial of mandamus is a procedural ruling refusing extraordinary relief and does not decide the merits of the underlying case in the trial court.
Can this decision be appealed?
A denial of mandamus by the court of appeals is generally not subject to further appellate review except by application to the Texas Supreme Court; parties may seek relief there if appropriate.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN



                                    NO. 03-26-00271-CV




                In re Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. and TD Ameritrade, Inc.




                 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION


              The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).



                                           __________________________________________
                                           Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Theofanis and Crump

Filed: April 23, 2026