Litigation and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Litigation and Contingencies	Litigation and Contingencies The Company and its subsidiaries are presently involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business operations, including but not limited to, personal injury claims, landlord-tenant, vendor and other third party disputes, tax disputes, employment and other contractual matters, some of which are described below. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company’s theatre operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws governing such matters as wages, working conditions, citizenship and health and sanitation and environmental protection requirements. On October 9, 2012, staff at the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (the "Regional Board") notified the Company that the Regional Board is contemplating issuing a cleanup and abatement order to the Company with respect to a property in Santa Clara, California that the Company owned and then leased during the 1960s and 1970s. On June 25, 2013, the Regional Board issued a tentative order to the Company setting out proposed site clean-up requirements for the Company with respect to the property. According to the Regional Board, the property in question has been contaminated by dry-cleaning facilities that operated at the property in question from approximately 1961 until 1996. The Regional Board also issued a tentative order to the current property owner, who has been conducting site investigation and remediation activities at the site for several years. The Company submitted comments to the Regional Board on July 28, 2013, objecting to the tentative order. The Regional Board considered the matter at its regular meeting on September 11, 2013 and adopted the tentative order with only minor changes. On October 11, 2013, the Company filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) for review of the Regional Board’s order. The State Board has not yet acted on the petition. The Company is cooperating with the Regional Board while its petition remains pending before the State Board. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. We believe that we are, and were during the period in question described in this paragraph, in compliance with such applicable laws and regulations. On May 5, 2014, NCM, Inc. announced that it had entered into a merger agreement to acquire Screenvision, LLC. On November 3, 2014, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit seeking to enjoin the proposed merger between NCM, Inc. and Screenvision, LLC. On March 16, 2015, NCM, Inc. announced that it had agreed with Screenvision, LLC to terminate the merger agreement. On March 17, 2015, REG was notified by the DOJ that it has opened an investigation into potential anticompetitive conduct by and coordination among NCM, Inc., National CineMedia, Regal, AMC and Cinemark (the “DOJ Notice”). In addition, the DOJ Notice requested that REG preserve all documents and information since January 1, 2011 relating to movie clearances or communications or cooperation between and among AMC, Regal and Cinemark or their participation in NCM. While we do not believe that REG has engaged in any violation of federal or state antitrust or competition laws during its participation in NCM, and while we do not believe that any DOJ or state attorney general investigation of movie clearances or any communications or cooperation involving REG and AMC or Cinemark will produce evidence that REG has engaged in any anticompetitive conduct in violation of Federal or state antitrust or competition laws, we can provide no assurances as to the scope, timing or outcome of the DOJ’s or any other state or Federal governmental reviews of REG’s conduct. In situations where management believes that a loss arising from the proceedings described herein is probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records the amount of the loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range and no amount within the range is more probable than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these proceedings is assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. The amounts reserved for such proceedings totaled approximately $4.0 million as of March 31, 2015. Management believes any additional liability with respect to these claims and disputes will not be material in the aggregate to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Under ASC Topic 450, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies, an event is "reasonably possible" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely" and an event is "remote" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight." Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Company believes the risk of loss is more than slight. Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for cases described herein in which damages have not been specified and (i) the proceedings are in early stages, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, for these cases, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period. Our theatres must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA") to the extent that such properties are "public accommodations" and/or "commercial facilities" as defined by the ADA. Compliance with the ADA requires that public accommodations "reasonably accommodate" individuals with disabilities and that new construction or alterations made to "commercial facilities" conform to accessibility guidelines unless "structurally impracticable" for new construction or technically infeasible for alterations. Non-compliance with the ADA could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, fines, awards of damages to private litigants and additional capital expenditures to remedy such non-compliance. The accessibility of theatres to persons with visual impairments or that are deaf or hard of hearing remains a topic of interest to the DOJ and they have published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the provision of closed captioning and descriptive audio within the theatre environment. The Company believes it provides the members of the visually and hearing impaired communities with reasonable access to the movie-going experience, and has deployed new digital captioning and descriptive video systems that should meet all such potential requirements or expectations of any federal, state or individual concerns. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all current applicable regulations relating to accommodations for the disabled. The Company intends to comply with future regulations in this regard and except as set forth above, does not currently anticipate that compliance will require the Company to expend substantial funds.

Litigation and Contingencies

The Company and its subsidiaries are presently involved in various judicial, administrative, regulatory and arbitration proceedings concerning matters arising in the ordinary course of business operations, including but not limited to, personal injury claims, landlord-tenant, vendor and other third party disputes, tax disputes, employment and other contractual matters, some of which are described below. Many of these proceedings are at preliminary stages, and many of these cases seek an indeterminate amount of damages. The Company’s theatre operations are also subject to federal, state and local laws governing such matters as wages, working conditions, citizenship and health and sanitation and environmental protection requirements.

On October 9, 2012, staff at the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board (the "Regional Board") notified the Company that the Regional Board is contemplating issuing a cleanup and abatement order to the Company with respect to a property in Santa Clara, California that the Company owned and then leased during the 1960s and 1970s. On June 25, 2013, the Regional Board issued a tentative order to the Company setting out proposed site clean-up requirements for the Company with respect to the property. According to the Regional Board, the property in question has been contaminated by dry-cleaning facilities that operated at the property in question from approximately 1961 until 1996. The Regional Board also issued a tentative order to the current property owner, who has been conducting site investigation and remediation activities at the site for several years. The Company submitted comments to the Regional Board on July 28, 2013, objecting to the tentative order. The Regional Board considered the matter at its regular meeting on September 11, 2013 and adopted the tentative order with only minor changes. On October 11, 2013, the Company filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) for review of the Regional Board’s order. The State Board has not yet acted on the petition. The Company is cooperating with the Regional Board while its petition remains pending before the State Board. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter. We believe that we are, and were during the period in question described in this paragraph, in compliance with such applicable laws and regulations.

On May 5, 2014, NCM, Inc. announced that it had entered into a merger agreement to acquire Screenvision, LLC. On November 3, 2014, the DOJ filed an antitrust lawsuit seeking to enjoin the proposed merger between NCM, Inc. and Screenvision, LLC. On March 16, 2015, NCM, Inc. announced that it had agreed with Screenvision, LLC to terminate the merger agreement. On March 17, 2015, REG was notified by the DOJ that it has opened an investigation into potential anticompetitive conduct by and coordination among NCM, Inc., National CineMedia, Regal, AMC and Cinemark (the “DOJ Notice”). In addition, the DOJ Notice requested that REG preserve all documents and information since January 1, 2011 relating to movie clearances or communications or cooperation between and among AMC, Regal and Cinemark or their participation in NCM. While we do not believe that REG has engaged in any violation of federal or state antitrust or competition laws during its participation in NCM, and while we do not believe that any DOJ or state attorney general investigation of movie clearances or any communications or cooperation involving REG and AMC or Cinemark will produce evidence that REG has engaged in any anticompetitive conduct in violation of Federal or state antitrust or competition laws, we can provide no assurances as to the scope, timing or outcome of the DOJ’s or any other state or Federal governmental reviews of REG’s conduct.

In situations where management believes that a loss arising from the proceedings described herein is probable and can reasonably be estimated, the Company records the amount of the loss, or the minimum estimated liability when the loss is estimated using a range and no amount within the range is more probable than another. As additional information becomes available, any potential liability related to these proceedings is assessed and the estimates are revised, if necessary. The amounts reserved for such proceedings totaled approximately $4.0 million as of March 31, 2015. Management believes any additional liability with respect to these claims and disputes will not be material in the aggregate to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Under ASC Topic 450, Contingencies—Loss Contingencies, an event is "reasonably possible" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is more than remote but less than likely" and an event is "remote" if "the chance of the future event or events occurring is slight." Thus, references to the upper end of the range of reasonably possible loss for cases in which the Company is able to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss mean the upper end of the range of loss for cases for which the Company believes the risk of loss is more than slight. Management is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for cases described herein in which damages have not been specified and (i) the proceedings are in early stages, (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome of pending appeals or motions, (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved, and/or (v) there are novel legal issues presented. However, for these cases, management does not believe, based on currently available information, that the outcomes of these proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, though the outcomes could be material to the Company’s operating results for any particular period, depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.

Our theatres must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA") to the extent that such properties are "public accommodations" and/or "commercial facilities" as defined by the ADA. Compliance with the ADA requires that public accommodations "reasonably accommodate" individuals with disabilities and that new construction or alterations made to "commercial facilities" conform to accessibility guidelines unless "structurally impracticable" for new construction or technically infeasible for alterations. Non-compliance with the ADA could result in the imposition of injunctive relief, fines, awards of damages to private litigants and additional capital expenditures to remedy such non-compliance.

The accessibility of theatres to persons with visual impairments or that are deaf or hard of hearing remains a topic of interest to the DOJ and they have published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the provision of closed captioning and descriptive audio within the theatre environment. The Company believes it provides the members of the visually and hearing impaired communities with reasonable access to the movie-going experience, and has deployed new digital captioning and descriptive video systems that should meet all such potential requirements or expectations of any federal, state or individual concerns. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all current applicable regulations relating to accommodations for the disabled. The Company intends to comply with future regulations in this regard and except as set forth above, does not currently anticipate that compliance will require the Company to expend substantial funds.