Union Co., and so defendant may be correct that we must overrule McMillan in light of Southern Union Co. Whatever the ultimate outcome, there is a reasonable dispute about whether the Sixth Amendment requires jury factfinding under Oregon’s restitution scheme. Accordingly, any error is not apparent, and we will not reverse the trial court on this point. Defendant next argues that Article I, section 17, requires jury determination of the facts underlying restitution. Under Article I, section 17, “[i]n all civil cases the right of Trial by Jury shall remain inviolate.” Defendant again concedes that precedent is against her, recognizing that Oregon courts have consistently held that Article I, section 17, does not apply to the determination of restitution. E.g., Hart, 299 Or at 139 (<HOLDING>); State v. N. R. L., 249 Or App 321, 332, 277
holding that youth in juvenile delinquency proceeding was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under ors 419c450 holding that plaintiff in erisa action was entitled to restitution under similar circumstances holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under ors 137106 holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under the oregon vehicle code holding that the trial court lacked authority under ors 137103 to impose restitution to pay the victims relatives for lost wages