Legal Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2011
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 10 - Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in litigation and damage claims arising in the ordinary course of business, such as actions related to injuries, property damage, and handling or disposal of vehicles. These legal proceedings include the following matters: On August 21, 2008, a former employee filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, claiming, in part, that he was denied employment based on his race and subjected to unlawful retaliation. The Company responded to the Charge of Discrimination explaining that it has a policy prohibiting the employment of individuals with certain criminal offenses and that the former employee was terminated after it was belatedly discovered that he had been convicted of a felony and other crimes prior to being hired by us. The Charge of Discrimination lay dormant at the EEOC for over two years. In January, 2011, however, the EEOC began actively investigating the allegations and challenging our policy of conducting criminal background checks and denying employment based on certain criminal convictions. It is the EEOC’s position that such a practice is unlawful because it has a disparate impact on minorities. It is Copart’s position that the Company policy is required by one of our largest auto insurance company customers. Because Copart’s customer is in the insurance and financial services industry, its operations are heavily regulated. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. §1829) prohibits savings and loan holding companies, such as Copart’s customer, from employing “any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust or money laundering, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense.” In turn, it is Copart’s understanding that the Company’s customer is obligated to make sure its vendors, such as Copart, comply with similar hiring restrictions. The EEOC is still investigating the Charge of Discrimination. The Company anticipates that if the Charge of Discrimination is not dismissed or settled, the EEOC will file a lawsuit in Federal Court on behalf of all former employees and applicants of Copart who were denied employment because of the Company’s policy. The Company believes that its practices are not unlawful and intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. On April 23, 2010, Deborah Hill filed suit against the Company in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Collier County, Florida, alleging negligent destruction of evidence in connection with a stored vehicle that suffered damage due to a fire at our facility in Florida where the vehicle was being stored. Relief sought is for compensatory damages, costs and interest allowed by law. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit. On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed suit against Copart in Superior Court of San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class action on behalf of persons employed by the Company in the positions of facilities managers and assistant general managers in California at any time since the date four years prior to September 21, 2010. The complaint alleges failure to pay wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, in violation of various California Labor and Business and Professional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification of facilities managers and assistant general managers as exempt employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive relief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney’s fees and costs, interest, and punitive damages. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit. On February 12, 2011, Jose E. Brizuela filed suit against the Company in Superior Court, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District, which purports to be class action on behalf of persons employed by Copart paid on a hourly basis in California at any time since the date four years prior to February 14, 2011. The complaint alleges failure to pay all earned wages due to an alleged practice of rounding of hours worked to the detriment of the employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive relief, unpaid wages, waiting time penalty-wages, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs of suit. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit. On August 10, 2011, Glenn A. Mangis and Lynn Brown-Mangis, husband and wife, filed suit against the Company in the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County, alleging exposure to asbestos during the course of his employment as a carpenter, electrician and laborer; and as a direct result of said exposure, Plaintiff developed mesothelioma. Plaintiff’s wife is alleging loss of spousal relationship as a result. On October 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of Copart. All claims against Copart were dismissed without prejudice and without costs as to any party to the matter. The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on our future results of operations cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. The Company believes that any ultimate liability will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated with these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. Copart maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for claims made against the Company. There is no assurance that there will be insurance coverage available when and if needed. Additionally, the insurance that Copart carries requires that the Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of the insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased. *Governmental Proceedings* The Georgia Department of Revenue, or DOR, recently conducted a sales and use tax audit of the Company’s operations in Georgia for the period from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. As a result of the audit, the DOR issued a notice of proposed assessment for uncollected sales taxes in which it asserted that the Company failed to remit sales taxes totaling $73.8 million, including penalties and interest. In issuing the notice of proposed assessment, the DOR stated its policy position that sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers are subject to Georgia sales and use tax. The Company has engaged a Georgia law firm and outside tax advisors to review the conduct of its business operations in Georgia, the notice of assessment, and the DOR’s policy position. In particular, the Company’s outside legal counsel has provided the Company an opinion that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax. In rendering its opinion, the Company’s counsel noted that non-U.S. registered resellers are unable to comply strictly with technical requirements for a Georgia certificate of exemption but concluded that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax notwithstanding this technical inability to comply. Based on the opinion from the Company’s outside law firm and advice from outside tax advisors, the Company has not provided for the payment of this assessment in its consolidated financial statements. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the DOR’s notice of proposed assessment and intends to defend this matter. The Company has filed a request for protest or administrative appeal with the State of Georgia. There can be no assurance, however, that this matter will be resolved in the Company’s favor or that the Company will not ultimately be required to make a substantial payment to the Georgia DOR. The Company understands that Georgia law and DOR regulations are ambiguous on many of the points at issue in the audit, and litigating and defending the matter in Georgia could be expensive and time-consuming and result in substantial management distraction. If the matter were to be resolved in a manner adverse to the Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and consolidated financial statements.

Legal Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2011

NOTE 10 - Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in litigation and damage claims arising in the ordinary course of business, such as actions related to injuries, property damage, and handling or disposal of vehicles. These legal proceedings include the following matters:

On August 21, 2008, a former employee filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, claiming, in part, that he was denied employment based on his race and subjected to unlawful retaliation. The Company responded to the Charge of Discrimination explaining that it has a policy prohibiting the employment of individuals with certain criminal offenses and that the former employee was terminated after it was belatedly discovered that he had been convicted of a felony and other crimes prior to being hired by us. The Charge of Discrimination lay dormant at the EEOC for over two years. In January, 2011, however, the EEOC began actively investigating the allegations and challenging our policy of conducting criminal background checks and denying employment based on certain criminal convictions. It is the EEOC’s position that such a practice is unlawful because it has a disparate impact on minorities. It is Copart’s position that the Company policy is required by one of our largest auto insurance company customers. Because Copart’s customer is in the insurance and financial services industry, its operations are heavily regulated. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. §1829) prohibits savings and loan holding companies, such as Copart’s customer, from employing “any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust or money laundering, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense.” In turn, it is Copart’s understanding that the Company’s customer is obligated to make sure its vendors, such as Copart, comply with similar hiring restrictions. The EEOC is still investigating the Charge of Discrimination. The Company anticipates that if the Charge of Discrimination is not dismissed or settled, the EEOC will file a lawsuit in Federal Court on behalf of all former employees and applicants of Copart who were denied employment because of the Company’s policy. The Company believes that its practices are not unlawful and intend to continue to vigorously defend this action.

On April 23, 2010, Deborah Hill filed suit against the Company in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Collier County, Florida, alleging negligent destruction of evidence in connection with a stored vehicle that suffered damage due to a fire at our facility in Florida where the vehicle was being stored. Relief sought is for compensatory damages, costs and interest allowed by law. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On September 21, 2010, Robert Ortiz and Carlos Torres filed suit against Copart in Superior Court of San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District, which purported to be a class action on behalf of persons employed by the Company in the positions of facilities managers and assistant general managers in California at any time since the date four years prior to September 21, 2010. The complaint alleges failure to pay wages and overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks and rest breaks, in violation of various California Labor and Business and Professional Code sections, due to alleged misclassification of facilities managers and assistant general managers as exempt employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive relief, damages according to proof, restitution for unpaid wages, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, civil penalties, attorney’s fees and costs, interest, and punitive damages. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On February 12, 2011, Jose E. Brizuela filed suit against the Company in Superior Court, San Bernardino County, San Bernardino District, which purports to be class action on behalf of persons employed by Copart paid on a hourly basis in California at any time since the date four years prior to February 14, 2011. The complaint alleges failure to pay all earned wages due to an alleged practice of rounding of hours worked to the detriment of the employees. Relief sought includes class certification, injunctive relief, unpaid wages, waiting time penalty-wages, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs of suit. The Company believes the claim is without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend the lawsuit.

On August 10, 2011, Glenn A. Mangis and Lynn Brown-Mangis, husband and wife, filed suit against the Company in the Superior Court of Washington for Pierce County, alleging exposure to asbestos during the course of his employment as a carpenter, electrician and laborer; and as a direct result of said exposure, Plaintiff developed mesothelioma. Plaintiff’s wife is alleging loss of spousal relationship as a result. On October 18, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of Copart. All claims against Copart were dismissed without prejudice and without costs as to any party to the matter.

The Company provides for costs relating to these matters when a loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The effect of the outcome of these matters on our future results of operations cannot be predicted because any such effect depends on future results of operations and the amount and timing of the resolution of such matters. The Company believes that any ultimate liability will not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the amount of the liabilities associated with these claims, if any, cannot be determined with certainty. Copart maintains insurance which may or may not provide coverage for claims made against the Company. There is no assurance that there will be insurance coverage available when and if needed. Additionally, the insurance that Copart carries requires that the Company pay for costs and/or claims exposure up to the amount of the insurance deductibles negotiated when insurance is purchased.

Governmental Proceedings

The Georgia Department of Revenue, or DOR, recently conducted a sales and use tax audit of the Company’s operations in Georgia for the period from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. As a result of the audit, the DOR issued a notice of proposed assessment for uncollected sales taxes in which it asserted that the Company failed to remit sales taxes totaling $73.8 million, including penalties and interest. In issuing the notice of proposed assessment, the DOR stated its policy position that sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers are subject to Georgia sales and use tax.

The Company has engaged a Georgia law firm and outside tax advisors to review the conduct of its business operations in Georgia, the notice of assessment, and the DOR’s policy position. In particular, the Company’s outside legal counsel has provided the Company an opinion that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax. In rendering its opinion, the Company’s counsel noted that non-U.S. registered resellers are unable to comply strictly with technical requirements for a Georgia certificate of exemption but concluded that its sales for resale to non-U.S. registered resellers should not be subject to Georgia sales and use tax notwithstanding this technical inability to comply.

Based on the opinion from the Company’s outside law firm and advice from outside tax advisors, the Company has not provided for the payment of this assessment in its consolidated financial statements. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the DOR’s notice of proposed assessment and intends to defend this matter. The Company has filed a request for protest or administrative appeal with the State of Georgia. There can be no assurance, however, that this matter will be resolved in the Company’s favor or that the Company will not ultimately be required to make a substantial payment to the Georgia DOR. The Company understands that Georgia law and DOR regulations are ambiguous on many of the points at issue in the audit, and litigating and defending the matter in Georgia could be expensive and time-consuming and result in substantial management distraction. If the matter were to be resolved in a manner adverse to the Company, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and consolidated financial statements.