Question: In between Martin v. Hunter's Lessee and Buckley v. Valeo which was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law?

Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated a California law that set limits on contributions to ballot issue campaigns.  The ruling relies heavily on the Court's earlier decisions in Buckley v. Valeo, holding that limits on contributions to political candidates implicate the First Amendment, and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, holding that the state governments have no compelling interest in limiting spending on speech about ballot issues. <SEP>  It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in civil matters of federal law. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on March 20, 1816. <SEP>  A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional.  In a "per curiam" (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression.  It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power.  Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken." Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976) is a US constitutional law Supreme Court case on campaign finance. <SEP> The judiciary of Uruguay is a branch of the government of Uruguay that interprets and applies the laws of Uruguay, to ensure equal justice under law, and to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution.  The legal system of Uruguay is a civil law system, with public law based on the 1967 Constitution, amended in 1989, 1994, 1997, and 2004.  The Constitution declares Uruguay to be a "democratic republic", and separates the government into three equal branches, executive, legislative and judicial.  Private relationships are subject to the Uruguayan Civil Code, originally published in 1868.  The Constitution defines the judiciary as a hierarchical system courts, with the highest court being a five-member Supreme Court, who are appointed by the executive branch of the government, for ten-year terms.  The Supreme Court appoints the judges of most of the lower courts.  Below the Supreme Court, there are sixteen courts of appeal, each of which has three judges.  Seven of the courts of appeal specialize in civil matters, four specialize in criminal matters, three cover labour law, and two focus on family matters.  At the lowest tier are justices of the peace and courts of first instance specialized in administrative, civil, criminal, customs, juvenile, and labour cases.  Although the hierarchy, all of them are functionally and structurally impartial, that is, the tribunal should not be interested in the object of the particular case, and the higher tribunal does not impose a behaviour nor precedent to the lower ones.  There are also separate courts for auditing, elections and the military.