Put yourself in the shoes of your reader and think about the information they will need to easily check your assertions and verify that they are correct, or to go back to the source for more information. The reader will want to know the citations of the cases you are referring to, but will also want to be able to find the specific pieces of information you refer to in those cases, without having to read the whole case to find them.
In order to assist your reader to find the necessary information, typically you would give an initial citation to the case when you first start discussing it, and then you would give judge-paragraph references for each new assertion about the content of that case. Depending on how quickly you are running through information in the case, the latter might be required for each sentence, though in some instances you might get away with having several sentences describing an aspect of the case with a judge-paragraph citation for all of them at the end. Nevertheless, you should make sure that it is simple for the reader to locate and confirm the relevant parts of the case for each of your assertions --- do not make them read then entire legal case scouring for confirmation of one of your assertions.
To see why this is helpful, I'll give a short example discussing a recent legal case. Depending on the specific legal citation conventions you are using, this looks something like the following:
The High Risk Serious Offenders Act 2020 (WA) (hereafter called the "HRSO Act") allows the State Government to apply to the WA Supreme Court for an order in relation to a "serious offender" under a custodial sentence. The High Court of Australia recently considered a challange to the consitutional validity of parts of the Act (Garlett v Western Australia  HCA 30).
This case related an offender in custody, Mr Garlett, with an extensive criminal history and a history of drug abuse (per Kiefel CJ, Keane and Steward JJ at paras 1-3). The WA Government applied for an order under the HRSO Act in relation to Mr Garlett and he responded by challenging the constitutional validity of the Act, leading the High Court to consider a limited aspect of this initial challenge (paras 6-8). The argument advanced by Garlett was that the exercise of non-judicial powers under the HRSO Act is inconsistent with the WA Supreme Court being invested as a repository of federal judicial jurisdiction (paras 39-42).
From the above description, the reader can find the legislation and the case I am talking about, but they can also find the relevant paragraphs for each part I discuss. In particular, they can verify that the applicant has "an extensive criminal history and a history of drug abuse" (at least according ot the court), they can verify the scope of the challenge, and they can verify the nature of the argument advanced for that challenge. In each instance, the reader is told to relevant paragraphs of the judgment that discuss this part, so they don't need to read through the entire case to find it.