Cuccinelli v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 722 S.E.2d 626

Attorney General issued two CIDs to UVA and the Rector & Visitors under FATA to investigate Dr. Mann's grants.
CIDs described data and materials related to Mann's awards/grants funded by Virginia or Commonwealth agencies.
UVA petitioned to set aside; circuit court found CIDs facially defective for failing to state the nature of conduct and held UVA a proper CID subject.
CIRCUIT court noted some grants were federal and others Virginia-funded; questioned applicability of FATA to UVA.
Virginia Supreme Court held UVA is not a "person" under FATA, thus not subject to CIDs; affirmed circuit court’s result with prejudice.
Concurring opinions offered alternative reasoning on the scope of FATA and the status of Commonwealth agencies under the Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UVA is a "person" under FATA.	Cuccinelli argues UVA qualifies as a Commonwealth corporation.	UVA is a Commonwealth agency, not within FATA's definition of person.	UVA is not a "person" under FATA.
If UVA is not a "person", are the CIDs valid against it?	If UVA is a person, CIDs are facially valid.	Since UVA is not a person, CIDs cannot validly target it.	CIDs are not valid against UVA; judgment set aside (with prejudice) on the threshold ground UVA is not a subject under FATA.

Warrington v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 365 (2010) (statutory interpretation de novo review; ascertain legislative intent)
Commonwealth v. Amerson, 281 Va. 414 (2011) (statutory construction guidance; plain meaning governs when unambiguous)
Deal v. Richard L. Deal & Associates, Inc., 224 Va. 618 (1983) (sovereign not a person unless expressly named or implied)
Ligon v. County of Goochland, 279 Va. 312 (2010) (nos. noscitur a sociis considerations in statutory interpretation)
VEPCO v. Board of County Supervisors, 226 Va. 382 (1983) (interpretation of statutory terms in context of whole act)