{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2014-52",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:7bfaca2b2f2e70fd1a78ae9cf931306769a331654749d8c1830c989cffd92a04",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 2014:52, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-2014-52",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2014-52",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 2014:52, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Hovrätten har efter en proportionalitetsbedömning avslagit en ansökan om säkerhetsåtgärd enligt 15 kap. 3 § rättegångsbalken då det inte har gått att bortse från risken för att sökanden har försökt utnyttja reglerna om säkerhetsåtgärder på ett sätt som inte har varit avsett av lagstiftaren.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Göta hovrätt, 2014."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2014-52",
  "softwareVersion": "93143fc4af40f84a",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-2014-52, RH 2014:52, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-2014-52 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:31c05f006d3ac5a1, 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-2014-52/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": "sha256:7bfaca2b2f2e70fd1a78ae9cf931306769a331654749d8c1830c989cffd92a04",
  "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": "sha256:7bfaca2b2f2e70fd1a78ae9cf931306769a331654749d8c1830c989cffd92a04",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T06:04:32.189Z",
    "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-2014-52",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}