If the quotation arises in a context that may be distinguishable, that should also be explained. It is also critical not to omit language that changes the meaning of the quotation or to add bracketed language that changes its meaning. Such practices are likely to be detected by an opponent and ultimately by the court. Again, it is best to acknowledge a potential distinguishing aspect of a case before an opponent makes a claim that it should be controlling. It is then an easy matter to argue why those potentially distinguishable factors are not material to the issue presently before the court.
Some lawyers go to the opposite extreme by including long quotations from cases.
That practice, although providing accuracy in describing what the authority stands for, sacrifices readability. It is difficult for any person to read and concentrate on a single-spaced indented quotation that goes on for more than a half page. Breaking up the quotation makes the brief more readable. That can be done by including a paragraph or even a couple of sentences that discuss why this quotation is relevant to the case. Generally, it is going to be more important to explain why a particular case is important to an argument than it is to provide lengthy quotations from that case.