I. This court should affirm/reverse because the appellant/appellee failed to present evidence establishing the four elements of something.
This is a short road-map paragraph that explains what the five elements are, and briefly mentions cases in this jurisdiction and others that support its holding (or present holdings substantially similar). This paragraph will preview what's to come in the next sections.
A. The appellant/appellee cannot assert element 1, because evidence of a requirement of that element was not presented.
The next few paragraphs present a CRExAC/CREAC/IRAC/etc. argument supporting (A).
D. The appellant/appellee cannot assert element 4, because evidence of a requirement of that element was not presented.
The next few paragraphs present a CRExAC/CREAC/IRAC/etc. argument supporting (D).
Everyone says that you cannot have a I. without a II., but when there's only one dispositive issue in the case, I have heard that you may organize it in this format.
Anyway, my question is whether organizing a brief in this manner would be clear to the reader and provide the best framework to argue a case with multiple elements. More importantly, in a case where a particular court action requires that all elements be established, if you're arguing for the party needing to establish all of the elements, it would probably be absurd to do a CREAC analysis on elements that really aren't contentious. Instead, would a one- or two-paragraph explanation on how the element isn't contentious be a decent alternative?
When arguing for the adversary, that is, the party that only needs to show the non-existence of one element to cause the court to rule in their favor, are you able to merely concede the non-contentious elements in the road-map paragraph?
Thanks for any input!