Rain, it's called "distinguishing" a case. When the other side cites a case, there is almost always something different in that case in the facts from the case at bar. When they point out a case as authority, you have to be able to distinguish the facts of that case from your own to show that although the case is similar that it has facts present that make it inapplicable to the point being addressed.
In 38 years I have found very few cases in which the facts of the case were identical to the facts of the case I was working on. It's happened of course, but there's almost always, without fail, facts that can be distinguished in a case that the other side cites.
JJ