{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2004-37",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:57ec0e7e13bbea17616e78c6011721472787e9bd0ad38941757131be49c59363",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RÅ 2004 ref. 37, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-ra-2004-37",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2004-37",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RÅ 2004 ref. 37, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Bestämmelsen i 20 kap. 2 § ärvdabalken att två gode män skall utses att förrätta bouppteckning har inte ansetts innefatta ett krav på att de gode männen måste vara samtidigt närvarande vid bouppteckningsförrättningen.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Publicerat som vägledande avgörande från Regeringsrätten, 2004. Tillämpar Ärvdabalken."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2004-37",
  "softwareVersion": "5b7534d998a43217",
  "citation": "avgorande-ra-2004-37, RÅ 2004 ref. 37, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2004-37 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:05a079e96f4440e6, 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-2004-37/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": "sha256:57ec0e7e13bbea17616e78c6011721472787e9bd0ad38941757131be49c59363",
  "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": "sha256:57ec0e7e13bbea17616e78c6011721472787e9bd0ad38941757131be49c59363",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T10:57:06.579Z",
    "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-2004-37",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}