The timely filing of the praecipe for transcript with the clerk of the district court satisfies the jurisdictional filing requirement, even if the tribunal does not timely prepare and furnish the transcript for filing with the clerk of the district court. McNally v. City of Omaha, 273 Neb. 558, 731 N.W.2d 573 (2007).

To confer jurisdiction on a district court for proceedings in error, a proper transcript must be filed with the district court within one calendar month after rendition of a final judgment or order to be reviewed. Clark v. Cornwell, 223 Neb. 282, 388 N.W.2d 848 (1986).

Where a proceeding in error pursuant to this section is utilized seek reversal, vacation, or modification of a final judgment or order, jurisdiction of a court does not attach until a petition and transcript, containing the final judgment or order, are filed in the court requested to review such judgment or order. Glup v. City of Omaha, 222 Neb. 355, 383 N.W.2d 773 (1986).

A transcript of the proceedings in the lower tribunal must be filed with the petition in error in order to confer jurisdiction upon the district court. School Dist. No. 39 of Sarpy County v. Farber, 215 Neb. 791, 341 N.W.2d 320 (1983).

A petitioner in error must, within one calendar month after judgment is announced under the law and facts by an inferior tribunal, file his petition with a transcript containing the final judgment sought to be reversed. Marcotte v. City of Omaha, 196 Neb. 217, 241 N.W.2d 838 (1976).

The provisions requiring plaintiff in error to file with his petition an authenticated transcript containing final order is jurisdictional and mandatory. Downer v. Ihms, 192 Neb. 594, 223 N.W.2d 148 (1974).

Responsibility for filing a proper transcript within time is placed directly on plaintiff in error. Lemburg v. Nielsen, 182 Neb. 747, 157 N.W.2d 381 (1968); Dovel v. School Dist. No. 23 of Otoe County, 166 Neb. 548, 90 N.W.2d 58 (1958).

Filing of transcript of proceedings of inferior tribunal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Anania v. City of Omaha, 170 Neb. 160, 102 N.W.2d 49 (1960).

Transcript is required. From v. Sutton, 156 Neb. 411, 56 N.W.2d 441 (1953).

Jurisdictional feature of transcript is the judgment, decree or final order sought to be vacated. Fike v. Ott, 76 Neb. 439, 107 N.W. 774 (1906).

Section applies to proceedings in error to Supreme Court; transcript is jurisdictional. Saussay v. Lemp Brewing Co., 64 Neb. 429, 89 N.W. 1048 (1902).

Transcript must be filed with petition and before issuance of summons to confer jurisdiction. Slobodisky v. Curtis, 58 Neb. 211, 78 N.W. 522 (1899).

In error proceedings, it is jurisdictional that transcript contain final order or judgment. Casler v. Nordgren, 55 Neb. 669, 76 N.W. 524 (1898).

Transcript of proceedings contemplates duly certified copies of original pleadings and papers. Royal Trust Co. of Chicago v. Exchange Bank of Cortland, 55 Neb. 663, 76 N.W. 425 (1898).

Requirement of filing of transcript of proceedings is jurisdictional. School District No. 49 of Adams County v. Cooper, 44 Neb. 714, 62 N.W. 1084 (1895).

Transcript of the record is necessary to review order discharging attachment. Goldsmith v. Wix, 43 Neb. 573, 61 N.W. 718 (1895).

Transcript must be filed with petition and cannot be waived. Record v. Butters, 42 Neb. 786, 60 N.W. 1019 (1894).

The mere production of unauthenticated original papers does not constitute a transcript within the meaning of this section. Moell Mennonite Deaconess Home & Hosp., 221 Neb. 168, 375 N.W.2d 618 (1985).

Properly authenticated transcript must be filed within one calendar month after the rendition of the judgment or final order. Friedman v. State, 183 Neb. 9, 157 N.W.2d 855 (1968).

Filing of copy of final judgment, without reference to its source, does not constitute the filing of a transcript of proceedings. Adams v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 684, 139 N.W.2d 885 (1966).

Upon petition in error from administrative board of a city to the district court, authenticated copy of transcript is necessary. Ostler v. City of Omaha, 179 Neb. 515, 138 N.W.2d 826 (1965).

Original papers cannot be made a substitute for transcript. Smith v. Delane, 74 Neb. 594, 104 N.W. 1054 (1905); Brabham v. Custer County, 3 Neb. Unof. 801, 92 N.W. 989 (1902).

Duly authenticated transcript containing final judgment or order is jurisdictional. New Home Sewing Machine Co. v. Thornburg, 56 Neb. 636, 77 N.W. 86 (1898).

Transcript must be properly authenticated to confer jurisdiction on appellate court. Brockman Commission Co. v. Sang, 52 Neb. 506, 72 N.W. 856 (1897).

The plain language of this section requires that for jurisdiction to attach, the transcript of the proceedings or praecipe must be filed specifically with the petition in error in the court requested to review such judgment. River City Life Ctr. v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal., 265 Neb. 723, 658 N.W.2d 717 (2003).

It is mandatory and jurisdictional that a plaintiff in error file a transcript of the proceedings containing the final judgment or order to be reviewed at the time a petition in error is filed. Cole v. Kilgore, 241 Neb. 620, 489 N.W.2d 843 (1992); Brown v. Board of Education, 231 Neb. 108, 435 N.W.2d 184 (1989).

Record of proceedings before tribunal constitutes the transcript that must be filed in district court with the petition in error. Dlouhy v. City of Fremont, 175 Neb. 115, 120 N.W.2d 590 (1963).

Transcript is required to contain the final judgment or order sought to be reversed. McDonald v. Rentfrow, 171 Neb. 479, 106 N.W.2d 682 (1960).

Transcript from justice to district court was sufficient though bill of particulars was not copied therein. National Supply Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 108 Neb. 326, 187 N.W. 917 (1922).

Petition in error statute that mandates that appellant file with his or her petition for review a transcript of the proceedings or a praecipe directing the tribunal, board, or officer to prepare the transcript of the proceedings plainly indicates that the transcript or praecipe must be filed specifically with the petition in error and must contain the final judgment or order sought to be reversed, vacated, or modified. Meints v. City of Beatrice, 20 Neb. App. 129, 820 N.W.2d 90 (2012).

The action of the city council on claims for pension and disability is reviewable in the district court by way of petition in error or appeal. Schmitt v. City of Omaha, 191 Neb. 608, 217 N.W.2d 86 (1974).

This section is cited as illustration of the meaning of the term "final judgment." Kometscher v. Wade, 177 Neb. 299, 128 N.W.2d 781 (1964).

Only one transcript is required although proceeding affects school districts in more than one county. School Dist. No. 49 of Merrick County v. Kreidler, 165 Neb. 761, 87 N.W.2d 429 (1958).

An appeal from a special assessment by a metropolitan‑class city taken as specified in section 14‑813 means that proceedings from a district court shall be the same as an appeal from a county board, and under this section, that means appeal is taken by petition in error and the review is solely of the record made before the tribunal whose action is being reviewed. Jackson v. Board of Equal. of City of Omaha, 10 Neb. App. 330, 630 N.W.2d 680 (2001).