It is customary to put the statement of the case first, although it is often important to understand many of the underlying facts in order to understand the procedural posture of the case. Different lawyers approach this problem in different ways, as the following discussion shows. I have an odd style questions.
Traditional wisdom puts the Statement of Case first.
ASAP what the procedural posture of the case is. However, I think it makes more sense to put the Statement of Facts first. It also puts the procedural posture of the case in factual context. Discussing the summary judgment motion, or the exclusion of certain evidence at trial, or a key in limine motion often makes little sense without a full understanding of the underlying facts. And a short paragraph or two in the introduction to the brief that explains the procedural posture of the case will put things in context, without boring and confusing the appellate court.