{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2022-s-459",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:d83d6344cd267b736c8b9c0acdf8ed1fb469b4b948e3898d0e3547f2bfae2004",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "NJA 2022 s. 459, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-nja-2022-s-459",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2022-s-459",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "NJA 2022 s. 459, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: I ett mål om utdömande av vite har domstolen normalt att utgå från att den som ett lagakraftvunnet vitesföreläggande har riktats mot är rätt adressat och haft faktisk och rättslig möjlighet att följa föreläggandet.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Publicerat som vägledande avgörande från Högsta domstolen, 2022."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2022-s-459",
  "softwareVersion": "ae457c5e01f1ebb7",
  "citation": "avgorande-nja-2022-s-459, NJA 2022 s. 459, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2022-s-459 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:ff08e5817dda6d6d, bygge legal-2026-08-25).",
  "disclaimer": "Källhänvisning med officiell identifierare. Ingen juridisk rådgivning och inget efterlevnadsbeslut.",
  "potentialAction": {
    "@type": "SearchAction",
    "target": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/nja-2022-s-459/run?{&samma_lagrum,samma_instans,avgorande_ar_senare}"
  },
  "language": "sv",
  "source_language": "sv",
  "text_language": "sv",
  "available_languages": [
    "sv",
    "en",
    "no",
    "de"
  ],
  "translated_views": [
    "manifest.json",
    "ai.json"
  ],
  "source_only_views": [
    "script.json",
    "run",
    "monitor.json",
    "verify"
  ],
  "translated": false,
  "hash": "sha256:d83d6344cd267b736c8b9c0acdf8ed1fb469b4b948e3898d0e3547f2bfae2004",
  "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
  "expires": "2026-08-31T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-08-25+legal-2026-08-25+2026-08-25T10:00:00",
    "content_hash": "sha256:d83d6344cd267b736c8b9c0acdf8ed1fb469b4b948e3898d0e3547f2bfae2004",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T07:23:03.857Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; live-fetch-per-answer; attribution-required; no-derived-index",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2022-s-459",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}