the County’s motion for summary judgment, however, Taxpayers submitted an expert’s report that discussed the Property’s primary use as a convention facility, which the County did not substantively controvert. The tax court’s minute entry ruling (which was later incorporated into the judgment) includes an express finding that Taxpayers “do meet” the specified purposes requirement of § 42-12009. The tax court reaffirmed this finding when it entered judgment, rejecting a proposed form of judgment lodged by the County that omitted the primary use determination. ¶ 36 There was evidence in the record from which the tax court could conclude that the Property is used primarily for convention purposes. Cf. Century Med. Plaza v. Goldstein, 122 Ariz. 583, 585, 596 P.2d 721, 723 (App.1979) (<HOLDING>). But even assuming arguendo that the court
recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings holding that grant of summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmoving party adduces nothing more than speculation to support its claims holding that a nonmoving party cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment by relying on conclusory statements holding that a trial court may enter summary judgment for a nonmoving party under appropriate circumstances