{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2002-100",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:aa62ae311e75a55bda2af9399259a29b1b38e51fb9b1c51875c3c60c053a7294",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RÅ 2002 ref. 100, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-ra-2002-100",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2002-100",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RÅ 2002 ref. 100, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: En sådan undantagssituation har inte ansetts föreligga att en kommun haft rätt att vägra bostadsanpassningsbidrag till en nödvändig men förhållandevis dyrbar åtgärd med hänvisning till en annan lämpligare bostad.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Publicerat som vägledande avgörande från Regeringsrätten, 2002."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2002-100",
  "softwareVersion": "011ad4b2a9399520",
  "citation": "avgorande-ra-2002-100, RÅ 2002 ref. 100, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2002-100 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:4ac87bc9d46d0ce8, 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/ra-2002-100/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:aa62ae311e75a55bda2af9399259a29b1b38e51fb9b1c51875c3c60c053a7294",
  "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:aa62ae311e75a55bda2af9399259a29b1b38e51fb9b1c51875c3c60c053a7294",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T06:05:19.398Z",
    "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/ra-2002-100",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}