Litigation	6 Months Ended
Feb. 11, 2012
Litigation [Abstract]
Litigation	Note K – Litigation The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit entitled “Coalition for a Level Playing Field, L.L.C., et al., v. AutoZone, Inc. et al.,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in October 2004. The case was originally filed by more than 200 plaintiffs, which are principally automotive aftermarket warehouse distributors and jobbers, against a number of defendants, including automotive aftermarket retailers and aftermarket automotive parts manufacturers. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that some or all of the automotive aftermarket retailer defendants had knowingly received, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act (the “Act”), from various of the manufacturer defendants benefits such as volume discounts, rebates, early buy allowances and other allowances, fees, inventory without payment, sham advertising and promotional payments, a share in the manufacturers’ profits, benefits of pay-on-scan purchases, implementation of radio frequency identification technology, and excessive payments for services purportedly performed for the manufacturers. Additionally, a subset of plaintiffs alleged a claim of fraud against the automotive aftermarket retailer defendants based on discovery issues in a prior litigation involving similar claims under the Act. In the prior litigation, the discovery dispute, as well as the underlying claims, was decided in favor of AutoZone and the other automotive aftermarket retailer defendants who proceeded to trial, pursuant to a unanimous jury verdict which was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In the current litigation, the plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages (including statutory trebling), attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction prohibiting the aftermarket retailer defendants from inducing and/or knowingly receiving discriminatory prices from any of the aftermarket manufacturer defendants and from opening up any further stores to compete with the plaintiffs as long as the defendants allegedly continue to violate the Act. In an order dated September 7, 2010, and issued on September 16, 2010, the court granted motions to dismiss all claims against AutoZone and its co-defendant competitors and suppliers. Based on the record in the prior litigation, the court dismissed with prejudice all overlapping claims – that is, those covering the same time periods covered by the prior litigation and brought by the judgment plaintiffs in the prior litigation. The court also dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs’ attempt to revisit discovery disputes from the prior litigation. Further, with respect to the other claims under the Act, the court found that the factual statements contained in the complaint fall short of what would be necessary to support a plausible inference of unlawful price discrimination. Finally, the court held that the AutoZone pay-on-scan program is a difference in non-price terms that are not governed by the Act. The court ordered the case closed, but also stated that “in an abundance of caution the Court [was] defer[ring] decision on whether to grant leave to amend to allow plaintiff an opportunity to propose curative amendments.” The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint and attached a proposed Third Amended and Supplemental Complaint (the “Third Amended Complaint”) on behalf of four plaintiffs. The Third Amended Complaint repeated and expanded certain allegations from previous complaints, asserting two claims under the Act, but stated that all other plaintiffs have withdrawn their claims, and that, inter alia, Chief Auto Parts, Inc. had been dismissed as a defendant. AutoZone and the co-defendants filed an opposition to the motion seeking leave to amend. In an order dated September 28, 2011, the court denied the four remaining plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint because the proposed Third Amended Complaint failed to address deficiencies previously identified by the court. On October 26, 2011, an appeal of the dismissal was filed by 143 plaintiffs to the United States Court of appeals for the Second Circuit. Briefing by both sides will proceed over the next several months and will likely be followed by oral argument. The Company believes this suit to be without merit and is vigorously defending against it. The Company is unable to estimate a loss or possible range of loss. In 2004, the Company acquired a store site in Mount Ephraim, New Jersey that had previously been the site of a gasoline service station and contained evidence of groundwater contamination. Upon acquisition, the Company voluntarily reported the groundwater contamination issue to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and entered into a Voluntary Remediation Agreement providing for the remediation of the contamination associated with the property. The Company has conducted and paid for (at an immaterial cost to the Company) remediation of visible contamination on the property and is investigating, and will be addressing, potential vapor intrusion impacts in downgradient residences and businesses. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has indicated that it will assert that the Company is liable for the downgradient impacts under a joint and severable liability theory, and the Company intends to contest any such assertion. Pursuant to the Voluntary Remediation Agreement, upon completion of all remediation required by the agreement, the Company believes it should be eligible to be reimbursed up to 75 percent of qualified remediation costs by the State of New Jersey. The Company has asked the state for clarification that the agreement applies to off-site work, and the state is considering the request. Although the aggregate amount of additional costs that the Company may incur pursuant to the remediation cannot currently be ascertained, the Company does not currently believe that fulfillment of its obligations under the agreement or otherwise will result in costs that are material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flow. The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of its business, including several lawsuits containing class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried employees who allege various wage and hour violations and unlawful termination practices. The Company does not currently believe that, either individually or in the aggregate, these matters will result in liabilities material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Litigation

6 Months Ended

Feb. 11, 2012

Note K – Litigation

The Company was a defendant in a lawsuit entitled “Coalition for a Level Playing Field, L.L.C., et al., v. AutoZone, Inc. et al.,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in October 2004. The case was originally filed by more than 200 plaintiffs, which are principally automotive aftermarket warehouse distributors and jobbers, against a number of defendants, including automotive aftermarket retailers and aftermarket automotive parts manufacturers. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that some or all of the automotive aftermarket retailer defendants had knowingly received, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act (the “Act”), from various of the manufacturer defendants benefits such as volume discounts, rebates, early buy allowances and other allowances, fees, inventory without payment, sham advertising and promotional payments, a share in the manufacturers’ profits, benefits of pay-on-scan purchases, implementation of radio frequency identification technology, and excessive payments for services purportedly performed for the manufacturers. Additionally, a subset of plaintiffs alleged a claim of fraud against the automotive aftermarket retailer defendants based on discovery issues in a prior litigation involving similar claims under the Act. In the prior litigation, the discovery dispute, as well as the underlying claims, was decided in favor of AutoZone and the other automotive aftermarket retailer defendants who proceeded to trial, pursuant to a unanimous jury verdict which was affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In the current litigation, the plaintiffs sought an unspecified amount of damages (including statutory trebling), attorneys’ fees, and a permanent injunction prohibiting the aftermarket retailer defendants from inducing and/or knowingly receiving discriminatory prices from any of the aftermarket manufacturer defendants and from opening up any further stores to compete with the plaintiffs as long as the defendants allegedly continue to violate the Act.

In an order dated September 7, 2010, and issued on September 16, 2010, the court granted motions to dismiss all claims against AutoZone and its co-defendant competitors and suppliers. Based on the record in the prior litigation, the court dismissed with prejudice all overlapping claims – that is, those covering the same time periods covered by the prior litigation and brought by the judgment plaintiffs in the prior litigation. The court also dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs’ attempt to revisit discovery disputes from the prior litigation. Further, with respect to the other claims under the Act, the court found that the factual statements contained in the complaint fall short of what would be necessary to support a plausible inference of unlawful price discrimination. Finally, the court held that the AutoZone pay-on-scan program is a difference in non-price terms that are not governed by the Act. The court ordered the case closed, but also stated that “in an abundance of caution the Court [was] defer[ring] decision on whether to grant leave to amend to allow plaintiff an opportunity to propose curative amendments.” The plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint and attached a proposed Third Amended and Supplemental Complaint (the “Third Amended Complaint”) on behalf of four plaintiffs. The Third Amended Complaint repeated and expanded certain allegations from previous complaints, asserting two claims under the Act, but stated that all other plaintiffs have withdrawn their claims, and that, inter alia, Chief Auto Parts, Inc. had been dismissed as a defendant. AutoZone and the co-defendants filed an opposition to the motion seeking leave to amend.

In an order dated September 28, 2011, the court denied the four remaining plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint because the proposed Third Amended Complaint failed to address deficiencies previously identified by the court. On October 26, 2011, an appeal of the dismissal was filed by 143 plaintiffs to the United States Court of appeals for the Second Circuit. Briefing by both sides will proceed over the next several months and will likely be followed by oral argument.

The Company believes this suit to be without merit and is vigorously defending against it. The Company is unable to estimate a loss or possible range of loss.

In 2004, the Company acquired a store site in Mount Ephraim, New Jersey that had previously been the site of a gasoline service station and contained evidence of groundwater contamination. Upon acquisition, the Company voluntarily reported the groundwater contamination issue to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and entered into a Voluntary Remediation Agreement providing for the remediation of the contamination associated with the property. The Company has conducted and paid for (at an immaterial cost to the Company) remediation of visible contamination on the property and is investigating, and will be addressing, potential vapor intrusion impacts in downgradient residences and businesses. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has indicated that it will assert that the Company is liable for the downgradient impacts under a joint and severable liability theory, and the Company intends to contest any such assertion. Pursuant to the Voluntary Remediation Agreement, upon completion of all remediation required by the agreement, the Company believes it should be eligible to be reimbursed up to 75 percent of qualified remediation costs by the State of New Jersey. The Company has asked the state for clarification that the agreement applies to off-site work, and the state is considering the request. Although the aggregate amount of additional costs that the Company may incur pursuant to the remediation cannot currently be ascertained, the Company does not currently believe that fulfillment of its obligations under the agreement or otherwise will result in costs that are material to its financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings incidental to the conduct of its business, including several lawsuits containing class-action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and former hourly and salaried employees who allege various wage and hour violations and unlawful termination practices. The Company does not currently believe that, either individually or in the aggregate, these matters will result in liabilities material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.