{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2010-26",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:092c0f16894d18e02ec12b19d466e183dbe4a597bb4774009f3e49bf8b773ece",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RÅ 2010 ref. 26, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-ra-2010-26",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2010-26",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RÅ 2010 ref. 26, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad som hände: Laglighetsprövning enligt kommunallagen.",
    "Vad domstolen sa: Skyldigheten för en hemkommun att ansvara för en gymnasieelevs dagliga resor mellan bostaden och skolan har inte ansetts omfatta resor mellan en inackorderingsbostad och en fristående skola som båda är belägna i en annan kommun.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Publicerat som vägledande avgörande från Regeringsrätten, 2010."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2010-26",
  "softwareVersion": "b103cb1d6adf8063",
  "citation": "avgorande-ra-2010-26, RÅ 2010 ref. 26, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/ra-2010-26 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:fb6dec6ddeefd203, 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-2010-26/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": "sha256:092c0f16894d18e02ec12b19d466e183dbe4a597bb4774009f3e49bf8b773ece",
  "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": "sha256:092c0f16894d18e02ec12b19d466e183dbe4a597bb4774009f3e49bf8b773ece",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T08:14:47.355Z",
    "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-2010-26",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}