{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2001-23",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:9b8381c95e8c634cbaa68f86993a9994d4dea702df0f472758acc241e62cfb32",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2001:23, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2001-23",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2001-23",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2001:23, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Domare som i beslut om rättspsykiatrisk undersökning funnit övertygande bevisning föreligga för att den tilltalade begått åtalade gärningar har ansetts jäviga då de vid fortsatt huvudförhandling prövat ny bevisning som åberopats av den tilltalade.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Hovrätten för Nedre Norrland, 2001."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2001-23",
  "softwareVersion": "8db1aa944d6b503b",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2001-23, RH 2001:23, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2001-23 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:0a6cd21b6f9ee965, 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-2001-23/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": "sha256:9b8381c95e8c634cbaa68f86993a9994d4dea702df0f472758acc241e62cfb32",
  "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": "sha256:9b8381c95e8c634cbaa68f86993a9994d4dea702df0f472758acc241e62cfb32",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T06:02:09.326Z",
    "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-2001-23",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}