The Evanier one is long and contentious but, not coincidentally, damned interesting. Evanier is a pro and doesn't fall for the lawyer's tricks. Marvel's strategy here is clearly to establish that Evanier (1) wasn't there; (2) is biased by his friendship with Kirby; (3) has a financial incentive for exaggerating Kirby's accomplishments; and (4) hasn't done his homework. The lawyer succeeded in (1).
A highlight is when the lawyer asks Evanier if he's studied anyone else's research in this area, and he responds flat-out that there isn't any, that he literally wrote the book on comics history. And then he names off a few dozen people he's interviewed over the past 40 years and adds that he has about 300 more names he could provide if they want him to.
A couple key points he makes: Jack was only paid for pages that were accepted; if Stan made him redraw 4 pages, he'd still only get paid for a 20-page story even though he'd drawn 24. So that makes it look a lot like a seller/client relationship, not work-for-hire. And there's also the fact that Kirby created the Fourth World characters while he was still working at Marvel; the fact that Marvel didn't agree to the pay he wanted for them and he took them to DC pretty clearly establishes that Marvel did NOT automatically own every character he came up with while he was freelancing for them. (And also that we may be going through this same story again with DC in a few years.)
Like everybody else, I would love to read a deposition from Ditko, but I imagine neither side really wants him up there. I imagine he'd damage both sides' cases pretty heavily and it's not easy to predict whose side he'd damage more.