for requiring adverse claimants to pay taxes on land they possess. The tax requirement might: (1) ensure that the State receives taxes; (2) provide notice to the true owner of possible adverse possessors; or (3) ensure the adverse possessor is acting in good faith. Averill G. Mix, Comment: Payment of Taxes as a Condition of Title by Adverse Possession: A Nineteenth Century Anachronism, 9 Santa Clara Lawyer 244, 250 (1968). We can dismiss the first theory out of hand, as this Court has apparently never suggested that county assessors lack the tools necessary to collect property taxes from Idaho’s citizens or that it is necessary to require adverse claimants to pay taxes when the original owner is likely paying taxes on the same parcel. See Trappett, 102 Idaho at 534, 633 P.2d at 599 (<HOLDING>). The second theory, notice, may be why the
holding that the courts jurisdiction is limited to the appeal of final board decisions that are adverse to the claimant holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed in the employees favor and any doubt in its construction is thus resolved in favor of the employee holding in favor of the adverse claimant stating that the ensuringtaxation theory is of no import here the taxing authority having received twice its due