I am writing this article on a graph related problem. In an important lemma dealing with classification of a type of graphs, I am undergoing this huge and tedious case analysis involving identification of a forbidden subgraph. Even though each individual case is often very simple, but for the sake of rigor, I am pushing the analysis grind day and night.
My only concern is that if a referee finds writing these cases involving easy identifications rather silly and picks up a bad vibe about an otherwise good article. Of course, to make sure that the lemma is correct, we have to wade through all the cases. My question is if it is a good idea to write all the cases down or just say that the cases are easy and such and such ideas come up repeatedly; thus, this is the result!