The rules of our supreme court are not aspirational. They have the force of law, and the presump- tion must be that they will be obeyed and enforced as written. These factors, which are not exhaustive, must be viewed in light of the rule's purpose. This court, in Mayoral, also considered whether the defendant was prejudiced by the delay. Defendant contends an application of the analysis in Segal demonstrates the plaintiff did not act with reasonable diligence.
Defendant also maintains public policy favors a find- ing of a lack of reasonable diligence.
Plaintiff, on the other hand, argues application of the factors in Segal is discretion- ary. These factors, however, are consis- tently used by reviewing courts. See, e.g., Womick v. 243 Ill. App. 219 Ill. App.