It does apply, because it showed that Reagan had courage to stir things up, in defense of his prerogatives as chief executive. Jeb's prerogatives as chief executive have been challenged by a local judge who has usurped executive power. So far, he's gotten away with it.
No, PATCO does not apply. It does not show that RWR had courage to "stir things up." It showed that he was willing to act withing the pwers of the office when necessary, but can not be used as the basis for an assumption that RWR would have engaged in any ultra vires acts. To use a similar analogy to what you have used, I could say that because you borrowed money to buy a car, that it would stand to reason that you would steal money to buy a house. The existence of a legal act in response to one set of circumstances can not be used as the basis for an assumption that the same person would commit an illegal act for circumstances that are unrelated to the circumstances that resulted in the legal act.