Rättskällor med officiella primärkällor

Utskrivet ·

Skip to main content
Skip to the answer
ExploreWorldAIExploreWorldAI

NJA 2003 s. 460

Då make väckt talan om klander av bodelning har den väsentliga grunden för talan ansetts vara invändningen mot bodelningen som sådan. (Jfr…

Då make väckt talan om klander av bodelning har den väsentliga grunden för talan ansetts vara invändningen mot bodelningen som sådan. (Jfr NJA 1997 s. 62).

The decision in three points

  1. What the court said

    Då make väckt talan om klander av bodelning har den väsentliga grunden för talan ansetts vara invändningen mot bodelningen som sådan. (Jfr NJA 1997 s. 62).

  2. Why it matters

    Published as a guiding decision by Supreme Court of Sweden, 2003. Applies Äktenskapsbalken.

Risk profile of the decision

HighThe decision carries substantial weight when relied upon. The reasons below show what the level rests on.

  • Published as a guiding decision by Supreme Court of Sweden
  • Applies one statute
  • 94 other decisions in the register apply the same statute

The decision in context

The decision is used in questions about family and migration.

Relations of the decision in the graph

Statutes (1)

Questions (0)

    Decisions (8)

    Agent commands

    • runCaseSummary()

      The core question and the decision in three points, verbatim from the published summary.

    • runLegalImpact()

      Risk profile, statutes and the decisions applying the same statute.

    • runObligationCheck()

      Deterministic test of whether the decision is guiding for your question.

    • runProofVerify()

      Check that the hash you cite belongs to this node.

    https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/nja-2003-s-460/manifest.json

    Court
    Supreme Court of Sweden
    Decided
    2003-10-27
    Applies
    1

    Mål nr Ö 1503-02

    • 17 kap. 8 § äktenskapsbalken (1987:230)
    Högsta domstolen, Sveriges Domstolar

    Official publication. The address points to the authority or court that published the row.

    Statutes

    Case law

    Case law read on 2026-08-29.

    Change monitoring

    The row is re-read against the publisher's own publication on a fixed interval. The dates below can be checked on the spot and travel with the API response.

    Change monitoring
    FieldValue
    RegisterSök rättspraxis, Sveriges Domstolar
    PublisherSveriges Domstolar
    Last read2026-08-29
    IntervalEvery 30 days
    Next re-read2026-09-28
    StatusChecked against the publisher
    Open the register at the publisher

    Row history

    Dated events concerning this exact row, newest first. No event appears here without a date in a primary source.

    Row history
    DateEventSource
    2026-08-29Row read against the courts' own registerSök rättspraxis, Sveriges Domstolar
    2003-10-27Date of decision according to Högsta domstolenHögsta domstolen
    1988-01-01Applied statute in force: SFS 1987:230Sveriges riksdag

    Monitoring states when the row was checked, not how the legal position should be assessed.

    Cite this row

    The string below travels with a memo, a case file or an agent chain. The same string sits in the citation field of the API response.

    NJA 2003 s. 460, Då make väckt talan om klander av bodelning har den väsentliga grunden för talan ansetts vara invändningen mot bodelningen som sådan. (Jfr NJA 1997 s. 62).. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2003-s-460 (hämtad 2026-08-25, bevis sha256:9708393b86b29381, bygge legal-2026-08-25).

    Machine addressHow to cite the platform
    sha256:
    9708393b86b29381b0733dfab9ddb2ab59bd442df8b152d2e4021ebf463c5927
    hämtad:
    2026-08-25
    source_confidence:
    official
    bygge:
    legal-2026-08-25
    officiell källa:
    https://rattspraxis.etjanst.domstol.se/sok/publicering/97b31b74-80fd-4f6a-9adb-3110cfcd32d1

    Official publication. The address points to the authority or court that published the row. Högsta domstolen, Sveriges Domstolar.

    The row is a source reference with an official identifier. No legal advice and no compliance decision.