Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Jun. 02, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Financial Instruments The Company maintains standby letters of credit (“LOC”) with a bank totaling $4.2 million at June 2, 2018. These LOCs are collateralized with cash 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 On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. The 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 (the “District Court”), in three groups of cases - the “Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action”, the “Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action” and the “Non-Class Cases.” The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. The named plaintiffs in these cases alleged that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claimed to be similarly situated. As previously reported, in November 2014, the District 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 named plaintiffs in these cases 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 District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, for an immaterial amount, and on July 17, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing all indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims against the Company and other defendants. The Non-Class Cases. In the remaining 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. On April 4, 2018, the Court entered a final judgement dismissing all claims against the Company brought by the following non-class plaintiffs: 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.; and Giant Eagle, Inc., with prejudice, pursuant to the Company’s previously announced $80.8 million settlement with the named plaintiffs. The only non-class plaintiffs that are not included in the settlement agreement are the following companies that sought substantial damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs): Conopco, Inc., Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company. The egg products plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act attacking certain features of the UEP animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many other egg producers. On September 6, 2016, the District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims based on the purchase of egg products. That ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgement and remanded the case to the District Court. Even though the appealing egg-products plaintiffs had asked the Third Circuit to remand the case for trial, the Third Circuit declined, instead remanding the case for further proceedings, including the suggestion that the District Court determine whether the egg-products plaintiffs had sufficient evidence of causation and damages to submit the case to a jury. On March 5, 2018, defendants filed a motion in the District Court seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment in light of the remand statements in the Third Circuit’s opinion. Plaintiffs opposed that motion, and on March 26, 2018, the defendants filed a reply in support of the motion. On July 16, 2018, the court granted the defendants’ motion for leave allowing the defendants to re-file a motion for summary judgment no later than August 17, 2018. The Company intends to file a motion for summary judgment by this deadline based on the non-class egg products plaintiffs’ failure to present any triable issue of fact on the elements of causation and damages in their claims related to the purchases of processed egg products. 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 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. 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., Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Cargill, Inc., George’s, Inc., Peterson Farms, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., and certain affiliates of the foregoing. 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. 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.

Contingencies

Financial Instruments

The Company maintains standby letters of credit (“LOC”) with a bank totaling $4.2 million at June 2, 2018. These LOCs are collateralized with cash 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

On September 25, 2008, the Company was named as one of several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg industry. The 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 (the “District Court”), in three groups of cases - the “Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action”, the “Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action” and the “Non-Class Cases.”

The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action. The named plaintiffs in these cases alleged that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant and sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claimed to be similarly situated. As previously reported, in November 2014, the District 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 named plaintiffs in these cases 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 District Court denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On June 28, 2018, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, for an immaterial amount, and on July 17, 2018, the Court entered an order dismissing all indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims against the Company and other defendants.

The Non-Class Cases. In the remaining 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. On April 4, 2018, the Court entered a final judgement dismissing all claims against the Company brought by the following non-class plaintiffs: 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.; and Giant Eagle, Inc., with prejudice, pursuant to the Company’s previously announced $80.8 million settlement with the named plaintiffs.

The only non-class plaintiffs that are not included in the settlement agreement are the following companies that sought substantial damages allegedly arising from the purchase of egg products (as opposed to shell eggs): Conopco, Inc., Kraft Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company. The egg products plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act attacking certain features of the UEP animal-welfare guidelines and program used by the Company and many other egg producers. On September 6, 2016, the District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice all claims based on the purchase of egg products. That ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and on January 22, 2018, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgement and remanded the case to the District Court. Even though the appealing egg-products plaintiffs had asked the Third Circuit to remand the case for trial, the Third Circuit declined, instead remanding the case for further proceedings, including the suggestion that the District Court determine whether the egg-products plaintiffs had sufficient evidence of causation and damages to submit the case to a jury. On March 5, 2018, defendants filed a motion in the District Court seeking leave to file a motion for summary judgment in light of the remand statements in the Third Circuit’s opinion. Plaintiffs opposed that motion, and on March 26, 2018, the defendants filed a reply in support of the motion. On July 16, 2018, the court granted the defendants’ motion for leave allowing the defendants to re-file a motion for summary judgment no later than August 17, 2018. The Company intends to file a motion for summary judgment by this deadline based on the non-class egg products plaintiffs’ failure to present any triable issue of fact on the elements of causation and damages in their claims related to the purchases of processed egg products.

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 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. 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., Cobb-Vantress, Inc., Cargill, Inc., George’s, Inc., Peterson Farms, Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., and certain affiliates of the foregoing. 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.

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.