Contingencies	12 Months Ended
May 28, 2016
Contingencies [Abstract]
Contingencies	13. Contingencies Financial Instruments The Company maintains standby letters of credit (“LOC”) with a bank totaling $3.7 million at May 28, 2016. These LOCs are collateralized with cash. The cash that collateralizes the LOCs is included in the line item “Other assets” in the consolidated balance sheets. The outstanding LOCs are for the benefit of certain insurance companies. None of the LOCs are recorded as a liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Litigation The Company is a defendant in certain legal actions, and intends to vigorously defend its position in these actions. The Company assesses the likelihood of material adverse judgments or outcomes to the extent losses are reasonably estimable. If the assessment of a contingency indicates it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated, the estimated liability is accrued in the Company’s financial statements. If the assessment indicates a potentially material loss contingency is not probable, but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, would be disclosed. Egg Antitrust Litigation Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants – that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties – and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group. The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported, in November 2014, the Court approved the Company’s settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class members’ claims against the Company. The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action. The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case. On July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust laws. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on February 22 and 23, 2016. The Court has not ruled on these motions. On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of 21 separate classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial. In addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary remedy under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ request for certification of an injunctive-relief class under federal law. However, the court allowed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification seeking a federal injunction. The plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015. The Company joined the other defendants in opposing that motion on November 20. The plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on December 11, 2015. The plaintiffs requested oral argument on their renewed motion for injunctive class certification. The plaintiffs also filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the court to hear an immediate appeal of the trial court’s denial of the motion to certify 21 state-law damages classes. On December 3, 2015, the Third Circuit entered an order staying its consideration of the plaintiffs’ request for an immediate appeal of the damages-class ruling pending the trial court’s resolution of the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class. The Non-Class Cases. Six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs’ claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of all of the claims in all of these cases or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of these cases. On July 2, 2015, the non-class plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal antitrust law. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on February 22 and 23, 2016. The Court has not ruled on these motions. Allegations in Each Case. In all of the cases described above, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs. The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting in October, 2006 and running “through the present,” the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to certify an injunctive-relief class, although the plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class, as discussed above. Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against the Company. The principal plaintiffs in these cases are: The Kroger Co.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU, Inc.; Safeway, Inc.; Albertsons LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company. In four of these remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the fifth remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act). The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company’s remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases). The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements and rulings described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements. State of Oklahoma Watershed Pollution Litigation On June 18, 2005, the State of Oklahoma filed suit, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc. and affiliates, Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Cargill, Inc. and its affiliate, George’s, Inc. and its affiliate, Peterson Farms, Inc. and Simmons Foods, Inc. The State of Oklahoma claims that through the disposal of chicken litter the defendants have polluted the Illinois River Watershed. This watershed provides water to eastern Oklahoma. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages, but the claim for monetary damages has been dismissed by the court. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. discontinued operations in the watershed. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. will be materially affected by the request for injunctive relief unless the court orders substantial affirmative remediation. Since the litigation began, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. purchased 100% of the membership interests of Benton County Foods, LLC, which is an ongoing commercial shell egg operation within the Illinois River Watershed. Benton County Foods, LLC is not a defendant in the litigation. The trial in the case began in September 2009 and concluded in February 2010. The case was tried to the court without a jury and the court has not yet issued its ruling. Management believes the risk of material loss related to this matter to be remote. Florida Civil Investigative Demand On November 4, 2008, the Company received an antitrust civil investigative demand from the Attorney General of the State of Florida. The demand seeks production of documents and responses to interrogatories relating to the production and sale of eggs and egg products. The Company is cooperating with this investigation and has, on three occasions, entered into an agreement with the State of Florida tolling the statute of limitations applicable to any supposed claims the State is investigating. No allegations of wrongdoing have been made against the Company in this matter. Other Matters In addition to the above, the Company is involved in various other claims and litigation incidental to its business. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, management, upon the advice of counsel, is of the opinion that the final outcome should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position. At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of the matters set forth above.

13. Contingencies

Financial Instruments

The Company maintains standby letters of credit (“LOC”) with a bank totaling $3.7 million at May 28, 2016. These LOCs are collateralized with cash. The cash that collateralizes the LOCs is included in the line item “Other assets” in the consolidated balance sheets. The outstanding LOCs are for the benefit of certain insurance companies. None of the LOCs are recorded as a liability on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Litigation

The Company is a defendant in certain legal actions, and intends to vigorously defend its position in these actions. The Company assesses the likelihood of material adverse judgments or outcomes to the extent losses are reasonably estimable. If the assessment of a contingency indicates it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated, the estimated liability is accrued in the Company’s financial statements. If the assessment indicates a potentially material loss contingency is not probable, but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability, together with an estimate of the range of possible loss if determinable and material, would be disclosed.

Egg Antitrust Litigation

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated. In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative class. In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants – that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from defendants or other parties – and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the named plaintiffs in each group.

The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported, in November 2014, the Court approved the Company’s settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class members’ claims against the Company.

The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action. The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case. On July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust laws. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on February 22 and 23, 2016. The Court has not ruled on these motions. On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of 21 separate classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial. In addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary remedy under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ request for certification of an injunctive-relief class under federal law. However, the court allowed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification seeking a federal injunction. The plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015. The Company joined the other defendants in opposing that motion on November 20. The plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on December 11, 2015. The plaintiffs requested oral argument on their renewed motion for injunctive class certification. The plaintiffs also filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the court to hear an immediate appeal of the trial court’s denial of the motion to certify 21 state-law damages classes. On December 3, 2015, the Third Circuit entered an order staying its consideration of the plaintiffs’ request for an immediate appeal of the damages-class ruling pending the trial court’s resolution of the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class.

The Non-Class Cases. Six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs’ claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004. On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for summary judgment that sought either dismissal of all of the claims in all of these cases or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of these cases. On July 2, 2015, the non-class plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal antitrust law. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment on February 22 and 23, 2016. The Court has not ruled on these motions.

Allegations in Each Case. In all of the cases described above, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.

The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting in October, 2006 and running “through the present,” the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify classes seeking damages under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion to certify an injunctive-relief class, although the plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion to certify an injunctive-relief class, as discussed above.

Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against the Company. The principal plaintiffs in these cases are: The Kroger Co.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU, Inc.; Safeway, Inc.; Albertsons LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company. In four of these remaining non-class cases, the plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. In the fifth remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment, and scheduling. The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the Company’s remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases).

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company believes are meritorious and provable. While management believes that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a result of the settlements and rulings described above, there is still a reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however, it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if any, to the Company because of these cases. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the financial statements.

State of Oklahoma Watershed Pollution Litigation

On June 18, 2005, the State of Oklahoma filed suit, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, against Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc. and affiliates, Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Cargill, Inc. and its affiliate, George’s, Inc. and its affiliate, Peterson Farms, Inc. and Simmons Foods, Inc. The State of Oklahoma claims that through the disposal of chicken litter the defendants have polluted the Illinois River Watershed. This watershed provides water to eastern Oklahoma. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages, but the claim for monetary damages has been dismissed by the court. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. discontinued operations in the watershed. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. will be materially affected by the request for injunctive relief unless the court orders substantial affirmative remediation. Since the litigation began, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. purchased 100% of the membership interests of Benton County Foods, LLC, which is an ongoing commercial shell egg operation within the Illinois River Watershed. Benton County Foods, LLC is not a defendant in the litigation.

The trial in the case began in September 2009 and concluded in February 2010. The case was tried to the court without a jury and the court has not yet issued its ruling. Management believes the risk of material loss related to this matter to be remote.

Florida Civil Investigative Demand

On November 4, 2008, the Company received an antitrust civil investigative demand from the Attorney General of the State of Florida. The demand seeks production of documents and responses to interrogatories relating to the production and sale of eggs and egg products. The Company is cooperating with this investigation and has, on three occasions, entered into an agreement with the State of Florida tolling the statute of limitations applicable to any supposed claims the State is investigating. No allegations of wrongdoing have been made against the Company in this matter.

Other Matters

In addition to the above, the Company is involved in various other claims and litigation incidental to its business. Although the outcome of these matters cannot be determined with certainty, management, upon the advice of counsel, is of the opinion that the final outcome should not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial position.

At this time, it is not possible for us to predict the ultimate outcome of the matters set forth above.