236, 240, ¶ 12, 69 P.3d 7, 11 (2003); State Comp. Fund v. Yellow Cab Co., 197 Adz. 120, 122, ¶ 5, 3 P.3d 1040, 1042 (App. 1999). As we have recognized, in our review, we construe the facts and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the opposing party. Wells Fargo Bank v. Ariz. Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local No. 395 Pension Trust Fund, 201 Ariz. 474, 482, ¶ 13, 38 P.3d 12, 20 (2002); Strojnik v. Gen. Ins. Co. of Am., 201 Ariz. 430, 433, ¶ 10, 36 P.3d 1200, 1203 (App.2001). Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Orme Sch., 166 Ariz. at 309,802 P.2d at 1008; Ariz. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); see also Smi-they v. Hansberger, 189 Ariz. 103, 106, 938 P.2d 498, 501 (App.1996) (<HOLDING>). We may affirm the entry of summary judgment
holding question of law applied to undisputed facts reviewed de novo recognizing that where material facts are undisputed the court only decides the application of relevant law recognizing the issue may be decided as a question of law if the facts are undisputed and support only one inference recognizing that when the facts alleged in the administrative complaint are not disputed this leaves only conclusions of law to be drawn as to whether the admitted facts constitute a violation of the statutes as charged and penalties to be imposed recognizing that when the material facts relevant to scope of employment are undisputed the question can be decided as a matter of law citing swichtenberg v brimer 171 ariz 77 82 828 p2d 1218 1223 app1991 robarge 131 ariz at 282 640 p2d at 213 recognizing that legal conclusions to be drawn from undisputed facts are properly resolved by the court