Tolan v. Cotton

What Happened

In the early morning hours of New Year’s Eve 2008, Robert Tolan and his cousin Anthony Cooper pulled up to Tolan’s parents’ house in Bellaire, Texas. Officer John Edwards was on patrol when he noticed their black Nissan SUV. He ran the license plate — but typed one digit wrong. The incorrect number matched a stolen vehicle of the same color and make. Edwards drew his weapon and ordered Tolan and Cooper to the ground.

Tolan tried to explain: “That’s my car.” Cooper said: “That’s not true” — meaning the accusation of theft wasn’t true. Tolan complied and lay face-down on his parents’ front porch. His parents, hearing the commotion, came outside in their pajamas. Tolan’s father, hands in the air, explained: “This is my nephew. This is my son. We live here. This is my house.” Tolan’s mother said: “Sir, this is a big mistake. This car is not stolen. That’s our car.”

Sergeant Jeffrey Cotton arrived as backup. He ordered Tolan’s mother to stand against the garage door. Here’s where the stories diverge sharply. Tolan’s mother, Cooper, and Tolan all testified that Cotton grabbed her arm and slammed her against the garage door hard enough to leave bruises that lasted for days. Cotton’s version: she “flipped her arm up” and told him to get his hands off her.

When Tolan saw his mother being pushed, he rose up — to his knees, he said; to his feet, the officers said — and shouted: “Get your fucking hands off my mom.” Cotton drew his pistol and fired three shots at the unarmed 23-year-old from about 15 to 20 feet away, with no verbal warning. One bullet punctured Tolan’s right lung and pierced his liver. He survived, but the injury ended his professional baseball career and causes daily pain.

Tolan sued under § 1983. The District Court granted summary judgment to Cotton, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed — finding that Cotton was entitled to qualified immunity because he could have reasonably perceived Tolan as a threat.

What the Court Decided

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision and sent the case back. The problem was simple but fundamental: the Fifth Circuit had failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to Tolan.

At summary judgment, courts must believe the nonmoving party’s evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in their favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). The Fifth Circuit didn’t do that. Instead, it credited Cotton’s version of disputed events and drew inferences against Tolan on multiple critical points.

The Court identified specific errors. The Fifth Circuit said the porch was “dimly-lit,” suggesting Cotton couldn’t see clearly — but the record contained testimony that the area was well-lit. The court said Tolan’s mother “refused orders to remain quiet and calm” — but she was explaining that the car wasn’t stolen, which was true. The court said Tolan was “moving to intervene” — but Tolan testified he only rose to his knees. On each disputed fact, the Fifth Circuit chose the officer’s version.

“By failing to credit evidence that contradicted some of its key factual conclusions, the court improperly ‘weights the evidence’ and resolves disputed issues in favor of the moving party.” 572 U.S. at 657 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249).

What It Means in Practice

Tolan is a critical guardrail against courts granting qualified immunity by quietly adopting the officer’s version of events at summary judgment. It reinforces a principle that should be obvious but is regularly violated: when the plaintiff tells one story and the officer tells another, the court must credit the plaintiff’s story at the summary judgment stage.

This matters enormously in excessive force and other § 1983 cases, where the outcome almost always turns on disputed facts. Did the suspect reach for a weapon or just scratch his side? Did the plaintiff resist or comply? Did the officer give a warning or not? These factual disputes should go to a jury — not be resolved by a judge adopting the officer’s narrative.

Tolan also demonstrates that the Supreme Court is willing to intervene when lower courts fail to follow summary judgment rules in qualified immunity cases. The per curiam format — an unsigned opinion with no oral argument — signals that the Court considered the error obvious.

How You Can Use It

Tolan is essential for opposing summary judgment in excessive force cases:

• Catalog every factual dispute. For each material fact, identify the plaintiff’s version and the defendant’s version. Then show the court that adopting the defendant’s version at this stage violates Tolan.
• Key quote: “In holding that Cotton’s actions did not violate clearly established law, the Fifth Circuit failed to view the evidence at summary judgment in the light most favorable to Tolan with respect to the central facts of this case. By failing to credit evidence that contradicted some of its key factual conclusions, the court improperly ‘weigh[ed] the evidence.’” 572 U.S. at 657.
• Pair with Graham v. Connor. The Graham reasonableness factors depend on the facts. If the facts are disputed, those disputes must be resolved in the plaintiff’s favor at summary judgment. Tolan’s version of the facts — unarmed, on his knees, reacting to his mother being slammed — tells a very different story than Cotton’s version.
• Template: “Under Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014), this Court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and credit Plaintiff’s version of disputed facts. The defense’s motion improperly asks this Court to adopt Defendant’s account of [specific disputed fact], which directly contradicts Plaintiff’s sworn testimony.”

How It Can Be Used Against You

Tolan doesn’t prevent summary judgment — it just enforces the rules:

• Undisputed facts still control. Where the facts aren’t genuinely disputed — or where video evidence contradicts the plaintiff’s version (see Scott v. Harris) — the court can grant summary judgment.
• “Even under plaintiff’s version.” The strongest defense at summary judgment is to argue that even taking every fact in the plaintiff’s favor, the officer’s conduct was reasonable. If the force was justified even under the plaintiff’s best version of events, Tolan doesn’t save the case.

How to counter: Make sure your summary judgment record includes detailed sworn testimony — depositions, declarations, affidavits — from the plaintiff and every favorable witness. Photographs, medical records, and any available video should be in the record. The more evidence you have supporting your version of events, the harder it is for the court to grant summary judgment without violating Tolan.