Copyif (myString != null && !myString.isEmpty()) {
  // doSomething
}

As further comment, you should be aware of this term in the equals contract:

From Object.equals(Object):

For any non-null reference value x, x.equals(null) should return false.

The way to compare with null is to use x == null and x != null.

Moreover, x.field and x.method() throws NullPointerException if x == null.

Correct way to check for null or empty or string containing only spaces is like this:

if(str != null && !str.trim().isEmpty()) { /* do your stuffs here */ }

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.

What about isEmpty() ?

if(str != null && !str.isEmpty())

Be sure to use the parts of && in this order, because java will not proceed to evaluate the second part if the first part of && fails, thus ensuring you will not get a null pointer exception from str.isEmpty() if str is null.

Beware, it's only available since Java SE 1.6. You have to check str.length() == 0 on previous versions.

To ignore whitespace as well:

if(str != null && !str.trim().isEmpty())

(since Java 11 str.trim().isEmpty() can be reduced to str.isBlank() which will also test for other Unicode white spaces)

Wrapped in a handy function:

public static boolean empty( final String s ) {
  // Null-safe, short-circuit evaluation.
  return s == null || s.trim().isEmpty();
}

Becomes:

if( !empty( str ) )