Are you curious? You seem to have a vast knowledge of Church history and documents. It would seem strange that you would be comfortable with a blind spot like this. If you suppose that there have been some, could you suppose that LeFebvre was correct in his resistance based on precedents as well as Catholic doctrine?
I don't really have much interest in searching history looking for examples of papal mistakes which were resisted. What's the point? We know that it's only legitimate to resist "were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law", for then "he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands is to be passed over." (Cardinal Turrecremata).
Since Msgr. Lefebvre wasn't resisting papal commands that were against Holy Writ, etc., his "resistance" could hardly have been correct. Nor were all his objectionable actions in the character of "resistance": for instance, consecrating bishops against the papal will, which was an act contrary to Divine Law, or the schismatic refusal to be in communion with members of the Catholic Church, which was manifested in the complete rejection of her normative rites of worship.