stupid appealate brief format questions

[zemog]

I'm outlining out my argument section of my appealate brief and have some stupid questions. Just say I have two rules, which I could not synthesis, so is the format,
issue
rule1 from case1
rule1 explantion/proof
rule2 from case 2
rule2 explanation/proof
rule1 application
rule2 application
conclusion.

Also, during my rule 1 and 2 aplication, can I bring in other case facts from case 3 or is during rule1 application, I can only compare my facts to case1, and rule2 application, I can only compare my facts to case2.  Can I bring in facts to case3 or case4?

Hope this makes sense.

[kristin1644]

I'm not an expert at legal writing by any means, but I think if I wanted to bring up case 3 or case 4, I would do it before you do the application.  The application is supposed to be applying YOUR facts to the rules, not bringing in other facts.  If you want to develop case 3 or case 4, I would do it before the application as another illustration of how the rules work.  Then in the application portion you can say "my facts are similar to case 3 and the application of the rule because, blah blah blah".  But you should already have developed the cases you are analogizing before the application section.  Just my take on things. 

[zemog]

You know more than you think.  Though my leg skills professor just wrote me in an email that there are successful ways to do what I asked, he advises that for a first appeallate brief, to stick with the standard methods of persuasion.