context: Even assuming that New York does not require written notification under section 9-504(3), the district court determined that Metlife did not provide adequate oral notification. This determination of a mixed question of law and fact is subject to our review under a deferential standard.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 841 F.2d 166, 170
citation_a.parenthetical: trial court's determination that defendant had actual notice of prior interest in goods was not clearly erroneous
citation_a.sentence: See Shacket v. Philko Aviation, Inc., 841 F.2d 166, 170 (7th Cir.1988) (trial court’s determination that defendant had actual notice of prior interest in goods was not clearly erroneous); see also Yockey v. Horn, 880 F.2d 945, 949 n. 6 (7th Cir.1989) (clearly erroneous standard of review is employed for mixed questions of law and fact).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: clearly erroneous standard of review is employed for mixed questions of law and fact
citation_b.sentence: See Shacket v. Philko Aviation, Inc., 841 F.2d 166, 170 (7th Cir.1988) (trial court’s determination that defendant had actual notice of prior interest in goods was not clearly erroneous); see also Yockey v. Horn, 880 F.2d 945, 949 n. 6 (7th Cir.1989) (clearly erroneous standard of review is employed for mixed questions of law and fact).