poultry growers to produce less to increase prices on the wholesale market because the processor also controls the growers’ supply. It may simply deliver fewer chicks to the growers, pay them the same low prices, and resell at the same or a higher price. When this happens, both the growers and the end-users are adversely affected. That is, by manipulating prices to suppliers, a monop-sonist threatens to injure the end-users. Id. at 1136 (“Monopsonies fall under antitrust purview because monopsonistic practices will eventually adversely affect consumers.”); id. at 1134 (“Tenth Circuit case law ... reject[s] the notion that a monop-sony plaintiff must prove end-user impact.”); see also Mandeville Island Farms v. Am. Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U.S. 219, 235, 68 S.Ct. 996, 92 L.Ed. 1328 (1948) (<HOLDING>). Hence, to establish that the practices of a
holding that the plaintiff failed to allege breach of a valid and enforceable contract but stated a claim for promissory estoppel holding ban violated the sherman act holding that same activity violated  2 of the sherman act holding that plaintiffs complaint failed to state a claim under section 1 of the sherman act holding that sugar beet growers had stated a valid monopsony claim under the sherman act even though they did not allege enduser impact