{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-118",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:e948fe69aec9a9f5c4f9df2239cc580f5da36e9b12db7b4e63ba0ae8608d7d68",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 1997:118, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-1997-118",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-118",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "Fråga om vad som gäller när två mål har till viss del identiska grunder, men hinder på grund av lis pendens inte föreligger och invändning om rättegångshinder på grund av skiljeklausul endast anförts i det ena målet",
  "abstract": [
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Hovrätten för Övre Norrland, 1996."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-118",
  "softwareVersion": "540101f39b6520da",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-1997-118, RH 1997:118, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-118 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:5bc20e57962bf1a0, 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/rh-1997-118/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:e948fe69aec9a9f5c4f9df2239cc580f5da36e9b12db7b4e63ba0ae8608d7d68",
  "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:e948fe69aec9a9f5c4f9df2239cc580f5da36e9b12db7b4e63ba0ae8608d7d68",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T08:14:42.403Z",
    "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/rh-1997-118",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}