{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2008-77",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:8cb99ac6df029fff639ec91788770cb01d4d2d57a25768949acff03d2812dd7c",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2008:77, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2008-77",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2008-77",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2008:77, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Inskrivningsmyndigheten ansågs ha gjort rätt när den antecknade en bostadsrättsförenings intresseanmälan om förvärv för ombildning till bostadsrätt, eftersom lantmäterimyndighetens avstyckningsbeslut, när anteckningen gjordes, visserligen hade vunnit laga kraft men inte registrerats i fastighetsregistrets inskrivningsdel.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Hovrätten över Skåne och Blekinge, 2008."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2008-77",
  "softwareVersion": "67829f1df72dfd8d",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2008-77, RH 2008:77, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2008-77 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:99a375a8e33a4824, 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-2008-77/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": "sha256:8cb99ac6df029fff639ec91788770cb01d4d2d57a25768949acff03d2812dd7c",
  "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": "sha256:8cb99ac6df029fff639ec91788770cb01d4d2d57a25768949acff03d2812dd7c",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T06:04:13.068Z",
    "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-2008-77",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}