Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch
Headline: Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Officer in Excessive Force Case, Citing Disputed Facts
Citation:
Case Summary
This case involves Shauntae Anderson, who sued William Crouch, a police officer, for excessive force and unlawful arrest after an incident where she was tased and arrested. The district court initially granted summary judgment to Officer Crouch, meaning it decided in his favor without a full trial, based on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability in civil lawsuits unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, and there is no dispute of material fact. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that there were disputed facts regarding the circumstances of Anderson's tasing and arrest. Specifically, there was disagreement about whether Anderson posed an immediate threat or was actively resisting in a way that justified the force used. Because of these factual disputes, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and sent the case back for further proceedings. This means the case will likely go to trial to resolve the conflicting accounts of what happened.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Key Holdings
The court established the following key holdings in this case:
- Summary judgment based on qualified immunity is inappropriate when there are genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether an officer's use of force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
- A plaintiff's testimony, even if contradicted, must be credited at the summary judgment stage when determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.
Entities and Participants
Parties
- Shauntae Anderson (party)
- William Crouch (party)
- ca4 (party)
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Comprehensive Q&A covering every aspect of this court opinion.
Basic Questions (5)
Q: What was this case about?
This case was about Shauntae Anderson's claims of excessive force and unlawful arrest against police officer William Crouch, stemming from an incident where she was tased and arrested.
Q: What was the initial decision by the lower court?
The district court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Officer Crouch, based on qualified immunity, meaning the case would not go to trial.
Q: Why did the Court of Appeals reverse the decision?
The Court of Appeals reversed because it found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Officer Crouch's use of force was objectively reasonable and whether Anderson posed an immediate threat or was actively resisting, which made summary judgment inappropriate.
Q: What is qualified immunity?
Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability in civil lawsuits unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights, and there is no dispute of material fact.
Q: What does it mean for the case to be 'remanded'?
When a case is remanded, it means the appellate court sends it back to the lower court for further proceedings, likely a trial, to resolve the factual disputes.
Case Details
| Case Name | Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch |
| Citation | |
| Court | Fourth Circuit |
| Date Filed | 2026-03-10 |
| Docket Number | 22-1927 |
| Precedential Status | Published |
| Outcome | Remanded |
| Impact Score | 65 / 100 |
| Legal Topics | excessive-force, qualified-immunity, fourth-amendment, unlawful-arrest, summary-judgment |
| Jurisdiction | federal |
Related Legal Resources
About This Analysis
This AI-generated analysis of Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch was produced by CaseLawBrief to help legal professionals, researchers, students, and the general public understand this court opinion in plain English.
CaseLawBrief aggregates court opinions from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project, and enriches them with AI-powered analysis. Our goal is to make the law more accessible and understandable to everyone, regardless of their legal background.
AI-generated summary for informational purposes only. Not legal advice. May contain errors. Consult a licensed attorney for legal advice.
Related Cases
Other opinions on excessive-force or from the Fourth Circuit:
-
Manning v. City of Tulsa
Tenth Circuit Upholds Summary Judgment for City in Excessive Force CaseTenth Circuit · 2026-03-30
-
Thomas v. Alabama Law Enforcement Agency, Pregno
Appellate Court Reinstates Excessive Force and Negligence Claims Against Alabama Law Enforcement Agency and OfficerFlorida District Court of Appeal · 2026-03-27
-
Latasha Rouse v. Matthew Fader
Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Officer in Excessive Force Case, Citing Factual DisputesFourth Circuit · 2026-03-24
-
Chong Lee v. Bradley Mlodzik
Seventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment for Officer in Excessive Force and False Arrest CaseSeventh Circuit · 2026-03-24
-
Keith Edwards v. Officer J. Grubbs
Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment for Officer, Denying Qualified Immunity in Excessive Force Taser CaseEleventh Circuit · 2026-03-13
-
People v. Super. Ct.
Court orders review of police internal affairs records in excessive force caseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2026-03-12
-
People v. Super. Ct.
Officer's prior misconduct records discoverable in excessive force caseCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2026-03-05
-
Ashley Cooper v. City of Wheeling
Fourth Circuit: Obstruction of Justice Justifies Arrest, Dismisses ClaimsFourth Circuit · 2026-03-03