Litigation	3 Months Ended
May 05, 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 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. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that some or all of the automotive aftermarket retailer defendants including AutoZone had knowingly received, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, from various of the manufacturer defendants benefits such as volume discounts, rebates, early buy allowances and other allowances, fees, and other payments including sham advertising and promotional payments that were not available to Plaintiffs. In an order issued on September 16, 2010, the court granted motions to dismiss all claims against AutoZone and its co-defendant competitors and suppliers. The court ordered the case closed, but allowed plaintiffs to move for leave to file a third amended complaint. In an order dated September 28, 2011, the court denied the 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, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Following mediation, on March 23, 2012, all parties settled the case pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On April 5, 2012, the case was withdrawn with prejudice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On April 11, 2012, the case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 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

3 Months Ended

May 05, 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 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. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that some or all of the automotive aftermarket retailer defendants including AutoZone had knowingly received, in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, from various of the manufacturer defendants benefits such as volume discounts, rebates, early buy allowances and other allowances, fees, and other payments including sham advertising and promotional payments that were not available to Plaintiffs.

In an order issued on September 16, 2010, the court granted motions to dismiss all claims against AutoZone and its co-defendant competitors and suppliers. The court ordered the case closed, but allowed plaintiffs to move for leave to file a third amended complaint. In an order dated September 28, 2011, the court denied the 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, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Following mediation, on March 23, 2012, all parties settled the case pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On April 5, 2012, the case was withdrawn with prejudice from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On April 11, 2012, the case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

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.