{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2009-73",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:da09302b846832de76f31e7fec636058896f074c789fec36ce9459ec349444d9",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2009:73, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2009-73",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2009-73",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2009:73, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Vid tingsrätten väckt talan, som föranlett dom och överklagande av densamma, har ansetts utgöra processhinder (lis pendens) beträffande ny talan, detta med hänsyn till att tingsrättens dom inte vunnit laga kraft vare sig när den nya talan väcktes eller när tingsrätten avvisade denna talan på grund av lis pendens.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Göta hovrätt, 2009."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2009-73",
  "softwareVersion": "a25db53d0db9413f",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2009-73, RH 2009:73, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2009-73 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:3a6df1e35ccf9f51, 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-2009-73/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:da09302b846832de76f31e7fec636058896f074c789fec36ce9459ec349444d9",
  "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:da09302b846832de76f31e7fec636058896f074c789fec36ce9459ec349444d9",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T11:57:54.359Z",
    "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-2009-73",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}