With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". ” Id. at 311 (quoting Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Alvarez, 576 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Tex.1978)). The supreme court analogized this purpose to that of “fair notice” pleading requirements. Id. Here, Texas Farm Bureau’s motion specifically listed each challenged element' of the promissory-estoppel claim. - -Texas Farm Bureau stated that Davis could not establish any of these elements. Thus, Texas Farm Bureau identified the elements as to which it contended there was no evidence, thereby giving Davis “fair notice” of what it was challenging. See id. Thus, we' conclude that, as to Davis’s promissory-estoppel claim, the no-evidence motion met the requirements of Rule 166a(i). See Gary E. Patterson & Assocs., P.C. v. Holub, 264 S.W:3d 180, 201 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). As identified by Texas Farm Bureau in its

A: holding prior publication must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim internal citations omitted
B: holding that guilty plea admits all elements of offense
C: holding that motion identifying and then challenging all elements of claim was sufficiently specific to satisfy rule 166ai
D: holding that terms identifying persons in a manner that the parties to the release would know who was to be benefitted sufficient under specific identity rule
C.