Let's assume you are right and see what's going to happen when we call equalsIgnoreCase(null):

1. this == anotherString is false;
2. anotherString.value.length == value.length - We are getting a NPE on anotherString.value.

Therefore, anotherString != null is necessary and crucial here.

this != anotherString already indicates that anotherString is not null.

No, it doesn't. It can only state whether this and anotherString not equal.

For instance, both this != null and this != "test" return true.

string == null compares if the object is null. string.equals("foo") compares the value inside of that object. string == "foo" doesn't always work, because you're trying to see if the objects are the same, not the values they represent.

Longer answer:

If you try this, it won't work, as you've found:

String foo = null;
if (foo.equals(null)) {
    // That fails every time. 
}

The reason is that foo is null, so it doesn't know what .equals is; there's no object there for .equals to be called from.

What you probably wanted was:

String foo = null;
if (foo == null) {
    // That will work.
}

The typical way to guard yourself against a null when dealing with Strings is:

String foo = null;
String bar = "Some string";
...
if (foo != null && foo.equals(bar)) {
    // Do something here.
}

That way, if foo was null, it doesn't evaluate the second half of the conditional, and things are all right.

The easy way, if you're using a String literal (instead of a variable), is:

String foo = null;
...
if ("some String".equals(foo)) {
    // Do something here.
}

If you want to work around that, Apache Commons has a class - StringUtils - that provides null-safe String operations.

if (StringUtils.equals(foo, bar)) {
    // Do something here.
}

Another response was joking, and said you should do this:

boolean isNull = false;
try {
    stringname.equalsIgnoreCase(null);
} catch (NullPointerException npe) {
    isNull = true;
}

Please don't do that. You should only throw exceptions for errors that are exceptional; if you're expecting a null, you should check for it ahead of time, and not let it throw the exception.

In my head, there are two reasons for this. First, exceptions are slow; checking against null is fast, but when the JVM throws an exception, it takes a lot of time. Second, the code is much easier to read and maintain if you just check for the null pointer ahead of time.

Since Java 7 you can use the static method java.util.Objects.equals(Object, Object) to perform equals checks on two objects without caring about them being null.

If both objects are null, it will return true, if one is null and the other isn't, it will return false. Otherwise, it will return the result of calling equals on the first object with the second as argument.

If you are not only limited to JDK you can use

StringUtils.equalsIgnoreCase(CharSequence str1, CharSequence str2)

from apache-commons lang which is null-safe and will return

 StringUtils.equalsIgnoreCase(null, null)   = true
 StringUtils.equalsIgnoreCase(null, "abc")  = false
 StringUtils.equalsIgnoreCase("abc", null)  = false
 StringUtils.equalsIgnoreCase("abc", "abc") = true
 StringUtils.equalsIgnoreCase("abc", "ABC") = true